PROPOSALS 



Hon. BINNEY, s:i, s„uih Fourth street, 

i II ill.M'.XCKV W>, W.iliiu in . i. 



i. LuNGsritLTH 

VM. CURRAN, 



SI[K.I-:|/S1]A.NK> 






oqcqoooooo6$>oooooooooooooooooo? 



o o o o 



ey po 

cu 4) O 



-. _00600000 _ 



a>a;cucuoua)cucucucu4}cuw^a}a}cucucu<ua)cucua}cucucucua;^ 

OOOCOOOOOOOOOCOQQOOOOOOOOOQOOOfe 



&•£ 
T3 cu 

\Wl d 



C/2 ^sj ^ 
.* >-.W . 

lit jd & & "S 



w "S -53 



S'SotSU 






*7\ g co pq 



~s.s 



-73 

o 
o 

R 

I 

IS 

o - <v 
^ "o -b 

Ph o-S g 

t53 rj r £ ^ ' 

•Jd , 



cu +j 



5 j w 



53 



*r £ 



CO *3 
_ ^ 53 

go -S 9 



-3 q5 

^S 

^ 53 
co GQ & 
1 a o 3 

-I 3 cu 

? JS «* 

S-i CO i—4 

£^: 

Or-lM 



co 
W 

S 

cd 



§8S*« 

s m i 

5J cu O 



o cti cu 

. -5; ^ cu 

o2 51 £ 

cu s O w 

to 1*1 n 

1h 1 



^ 



OS 



P-l js 

cO cO 

Sh O 

-CO cu 












w 



03, 



H 
O 

•<J 



P3 



H h 



3w gg^SSB 

M ffi py PQ <J 









H 

Q 

«Q 

>M 
.WHO 

HoQp0fa 
CO GQ M 
l-j (-5 ^5 h-i P- 






m 

o M o5 



S - acLi 

^°S ■ 



EXEG E SIS 



ENGLISH SYNTAX 



DESIGNED TO ENABLE TEACHERS, PUPILS, AND OTHERS TO COMPREHEND FULLY, 

THE PRESENT POPULAR SYSTEM OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR, AS PRESENTED BY 

MURRAY, AND SIMPLIFIED BY LATER WRITERS. 



" Read, not to contradict, or confute, nor to believe, and take for granted, but 
to weigh, and consider.' 1 ''— Lord Bacon. 



BY JAMES BROWN: 

AUTHOR OF THE SYSTEM FROM WHICH PARENTS MAY TEACH THEMSELVES, AND 
THEIR CHILDREN, AND FROM WHICH ADULTS WITH GOOD MINDS, AND THE HABIT 
OF STUDY ALREADY FORMED, MAY ACQUIRE, WITH VERY LITTLE ATTENTION, A 
CORRECT KNOWLEDGE OF SYNTAX WITHOUT ANY AID FROM A LIVING TEACHER. 



^ 



PHILADELPHIA: 

JAMES KAY, JUN. AND BROTHER, 122 CHESNUT STREET, 
Pittsburgh :— C. H. KAY, AND CO. 

1840. 



^yfi 



Entered according to the. Act of Congress, in the year 1840, by James 
Brown, in the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania. 



Jj fy 



STEREOTYPED EY S. DOUGLAS WYETH, PHILADELPHIA. 
PRINTED BY JAMES KAY, JUN. AND BROTHER. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



The author of this work has long been satisfied that our 
schools need a Class book of Criticisms upon English Grammar. 
Youth may acquire the art of parsing, as it is called, without 
employing any faculty except the memory. But they can 
never become masters of the constructive genius of our lan- 
guage without a generous exercise of the judgment. Some 
means, therefore, which will set aside this mere memorizing 
process, and bring the judgment into action, must be employed, 
or youth must either remain ignorant of their own language, or 
acquire a knowledge of it after they shall have left school ! 

The old standard, too, by which a person is judged to be 
competent to teach the English Language, must give place to 
one which implies more knowledge : a mere ability to parse, 
neither proves, nor confers a capacity to write the English 
Language. 

The interest which one feels in any subject, depends much 
upon the circumstances under which his attention may be 
called to it. The interest which is excited by an attack upon 
some custom, practice, or law, is far greater than that which is 
raised from a mere attempt to learn the common application of 
this custom, or law, in the affairs of life. This little volume 
assails the present popular system of English Grammar ; and, 
in it, the principles which youth desire to learn, are more 
thoroughly discussed, more thoroughly shaken into pieces, than 
they are in the system which it attempts to overthrow. Here 
the pupil is not only relieved of the drudgery of memorizing, 
but is delighted, and instructed by a vivid debate upon the very 
doctrines which the old system teaches. The author of this work, 
however, would not recommend the use of it for the sake of the 
knowledge which the pupil may acquire of the old system of 
English grammar. He would recommend its use as a reading 
Book in schools for the sake of that philological strength, that 
grammatical skill, which nothing but a critical reading of 
works like this, can give to the human mind. 



MANNER OF USING THE SYSTEM OF ENGLISH 

SYNTAX IN SCHOOLS. 

The system of English syntax comprises two books, and is 
designed to give the pupil a full course of critical reading in 

iii 



ADVERT1SMENT. 



what is generally called English Grammar. Nothing is to be 
memorized : every thing is illustrated through the medium of 
diagrams, or plates which accompany one of the books, in the 
form of an atlas. 



AN OBJECTION REMOVED. 

To meet an objection which some teachers might raise to the 
use of the system of English Syntax, on account of its novelty 
in technology, the old names are so connected with the new, 
that the pupil becomes familiar with both without any addi 
tional pains. - 



ENGLISH SYNTAX, 
ACQUIRED WITHOUT A TEACHER. 

The announcement of a system of grammar, by which a cor- 
rect knowledge of English Syntax can be acquired without the 
aid of a teacher^ will surely be received with great distrust. 
The world has been too long accustomed to learn from teachers 
to assent readily, to the proposition that a system is now form- 
ed hy which this science can be acquired without instructors. 
But the subscriber is convinced from experiments, that any one 
who can acquire even a partial knowledge of English grammar 
upon the old plan with the aid of a teacher, can acquire a com- 
plete knowledge of it from his system without any such aid. 

The subscriber invites all ladies, and gentlemen who wish to 
see him upon this subject to call at No. 90 South Eighth St., 
where he will Be happy to gratify any curiosity which the 
novelty of his pretensions may excite. He invites also parents 
whose children are now attending to grammar, to call on him 
at any hour which may suit their convenience : and he pledges 
himself to demonstrate to them that the old system is inconsis- 
tent with itself, and with truth ; that it is wholly irrevelant to 
the constructive genius of our language, and directly opposed 
to the intuitive dictates of the human mind. 

All who wish to become lecturers on this system, and venders 
of the work, are invited to call on the author, No. 90 South 
Eighth St., where he will be happy to do all in his power to 
enable them to pursue a lucrative, and an honourable vocation. 

JAMES BROWN. 

The work may be procured at No. 90 South Eighth Street. 



PREFACE. 

As the title page of this work contains little, or no intimation 
that my views on English grammar differ from Mr. Murray's, it 
may be well enough to state that the opinions of no two men 
on any one subject can be more dissimilar than are Mr. Murray's, 
and my own on the subject of English grammar. 

The following portion of the title page of this little volume 
may excite a smile in him who shall have read the work : 

" Designed to enable teachers to comprehend fully, the 
present popular system of English Grammar, as presented by 
Murray, and simplified by later writers." 

Whether teachers will be very ready to thank me for the 
pains which I have taken to enable them to comprehend what 
they have so long professed to teach, depends entirely upon 
their willingness to express that gratitude which every instructer 
of youth who shall have read this work, must feel toward its 
author. 

My position is that teachers use the present popular system 
of English Grammar, not because they do understand it, but 
because they do not understand it. And in this little work, I 
propose to enable them to understand it, and to make them, not 
only willing, but glad to renounce it. 

My undertaking will certainly oppose the wisdom of the . 
learned, and the practice of years. But it should not be for- 
gotten that systems, the growth of ages, have been overturned, 
and that principles, grey with centuries have been found a 
delusive chimera. Still the old system of English Grammar 
has so long enjoyed the approbation of the world, that any 
attempt at the introduction of a different one, may be considered^ 
an obtrusive innovation. But it should be remembered that the 
arts, and sciences have always been slow in their progress, and 
that they have been brought to their present condition by the accu- 
mulated efforts of different countries, and successive generations. 
Even the useful arts which daily experience is constantly im- 
proving, have attained only comparative excellence. Great, 
therefore, as have been the successive efforts of the British 

English Grammarians, and much as they deserve approbation 
I % v 



VI PREFACE. 

for what they have accomplished, the history of the arts, and 
sciences, and particularly the difficulties attending philological 
investigation, forbid a belief that the European system of 
English Grammar is a full, clear, and true expression of the 
constructive principles of our vernacular tongue. The direction 
of man is upwards — and although, when he was on the ^rst 
round in the ladder, many were ready to commemorate the 
event of his having attained the summit bar in the climax, and, 
although he has been rising ever since, still his future strides 
will, in all probability, be longer, and more numerous than have 
been his past ones. There is a work for man to do ; and he will 
not fold his arms, till he can say, it is finished. To establish 
this, nothing is necessary but a view of the past, and the 
present. " Within fifty years," says Dr. Webster, " thousands 
of new words have been added to our language, and a com- 
plete revolution has been effected in almost every physical 
science. 

" Terms in the arts and sciences — of these some thousands 
have been added to our language within the last fifty years, of 
which a small number only, have found their way into any 
dictionary" " The exact number of these terms now intro- 
duced for the first time into a dictionary, is not known." " It 
cannot, however, be much short of four thousand." " Among 
them are some of the most common words in the language, 
such as oxyd, muriate, sulphate, sulphuric, nitric, azote, phos- 
phorus, planetarium, polarize, &c." " Since the time of John- 
son a complete revolution has taken place in almost every 
branch of physical science." "New departments have been 
created, new principles developed, new modes of classification, 
and description, adopted." — Advertisement to Dictionary. 

That men in general are satisfied with the present system 
of English Grammar, is obvious from its popularity. Men in 
general are always satisfied with the present condition of art, 
and science. The views of the majority are well expressed in 
the following extract which I have taken from a publication of 
much merit, and extensive circulation : 

"PROGRESS OF SCIENCE. 

" Men, with but few exceptions, appear to be perfectly satis- 
fied with the present state of human knowledge, and seem to 



PREFACE. VH 

look with jealousy and disapprobation on any attempt to enlarge 
the sphere of our intellectual acquirements. Every philosopher 
who starts a new theory is sneered at, and ridiculed until he has 
fortified his opinions beyond all possibility of attack. And even 
in pursuit of discoveries which promise to be of the utmost 
benefit to the human species, the man of talent rarely meets 
with sympathy or encouragement till he has triumphed over 
every obstacle, and the successful termination of his labours is 
no longer doubtful. When genius has triumphed, and the 
object is attained, then comes the encouragement — when it is 
no longer needed. The world is not so considerate as to ac- 
knowledge that the very attempt at scientific discoveries is not 
without its benefits, and is not undeserving of praise — even if 
the original design is not accomplished. The pursuit of the 
philosopher's stone and the elixir of life, fallacious as it un- 
doubtedly was, has still been attended with advantages to 
science, inasmuch as it has prepared the way for real discoveries. 
The repugnance to improvement and innovation, which men 
generally exhibit, is the greatest impediment which has ever 
been offered to the progress of science. Great minds will 
endure much in the pursuit of great objects ; — labour, self-denial 
and disappointment are evils sustained with comparative forti- 
tude ; and poverty itself is not an " unconquerable bar." But 
the devotee of science is seldom insensible to the reproaches 
•uid contempt of his fellow men. That love of approbation, which 
;S inseparable from superior intellects is inexpressibly shocked 
♦vhen the labours of the man of genius, are not apreciated, and 
his designs are misrepresented and ridiculed. It requires super- 
human energy to sustain the sensitive mind in such circum- 
stances. Yet every man who attempts to enlarge the circle of 
science, or to introduce some grand improvement in the arts, 
must, generally speaking, pass through this ordeal. He must 
be misconceived, contemned, hated and persecuted until the 
day of his final triumph. 

It seems to be a notion entertained by many that human 
knowledge has approached very near its state of perfection, 
and that most attempts at improvement are idle, and to no pur- 
pose. Very probably such ideas might have been prevalent in 
the days of Alexander the Great. Certainly they would not 
have been more absurd then than they are at present. All that 



Vlll PREFACE. 

the intellect of man has accomplished since the time of Alex- 
ander, will probably be cast into the shade by that which will 
be accomplished hereafter. If the vanity of man would suffer 
him to reflect on this probability, we should see less effort made 
to frown down every thing which is considered an impertinent 
speculation or a dreaming theory because none of our ancestors 
happened to speak or write on the same subject. It may be 
presumption in a son to consider himself wiser than his father, 
but it is not presumptuous in the present age to believe itself 
wiser than the one which preceded it. No truth is more 
evident. As the world grows older, its inhabitants increase in 
knowledge, and there is no conceivable limit to the extent of 
that knowledge. Every year adds something to the intellectual 
stores of men ; and who shall pretend to say what the human 
mind may not achieve in the course of another century? we 
may justly congratulate ourselves on our superiority over the 
generation that has departed, but our successors on this sphere, 
when they take a retrospect of our condition, may congratulate 
themselves, also, and for the same reasons." 



A BRIEF CONTRAST OF THE TV/O SYSTEMS. 

1. The American System differs from the old, inasmuch 
as it is founded upon principles which belong to grammar, 
instead of, as is the old, upon principles which belong to 
things. Or in other words, 

The American System differs from the old inasmuch as 
it is founded upon syntax principles instead of dictionary, 
or significant ones, as is the old ! 

2. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as its definitions, and rules are true, and consistent, instead 
of, as are those of the old system, false, and conflicting. 

3. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as v its nomenclature is appropriate, laconic, and easy of 
comprehension, and of retention, instead of inappropriate, 
vague, prolix, and difficult of comprehension, and hard of 
retention, as is that of the old system. 

4. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as it is a full expression of the entire grammar of the Eng- 
lish language, and not a partial development of a mere part 
of the syntax of this language, as is the old system. 

5. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as it may be acquired without the slavish task of memo- 
rizing. 

6. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as it is taught through the medium of the eye. 

7. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as it may be acquired by adults without even the least aid 
from living teachers. 

8. The method of learning by the American System dif- 
fers from that of learning by the old inasmuch as it makes 
the pupil master of printed speech, which places him on 
all the roads to knowledge. 

Note. The practice of teaching viva voce, or by lectures, may be 
carried too far; for the habit of acquiring knowledge from the voice 
does not favour the cultivation of a skill to acquire it from books. It is 
so very important that pupils should habituate themselves to the acquir- 
ing of ideas from print, that the art of teaching properly, lies, in a great 
degree, in giving them command over printed speech. It is upon 



A BRIEF CONTRAST OF THE TWO SYSTEMS. 

printed signs that they are to depend in the absence of living teachers. 
Memorizing lessons, and attending lectures, are, when carried as far as 
they are at the present day, pernicious to the cause of science, and un- 
favourable to the growth of the human mind. Make youth masters of 
printed language, and you put them on all the roads to knowledge. 

9. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as no one can teach from it without understanding it ; for 
the act of teaching by it is not a process of mere memo- 
rizing from the book, and reciting to the teacher! 

10. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as it throws nearly all the labour upon the student, by ena- 
bling him to understand the subject with little, or no aid from 
his teacher. 

1 1 . The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as it employs the perceptive powers instead of the mere 
memorizing faculty of the learner. 

12. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as it enables the pupil to parse all those constructions which 
are called by the old system, anomalous! 

13. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as it begets a love for, instead of a dislike to, the study of 
grammar. 

14. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as its principles are made lasting from their connexion with 
the judgment, and not transient from a mere connexion 
with the memory, as are those of the old system. 

15. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as the old employs ninety-three technical terms while the 
American employs but forty-four ! (See the Nomencla- 
tural Concordance.) 

16. The American System differs from the old inasmuch 
as its technicals can be explained by the teacher, and un- 
derstood by the pupil, while the old system's technicals 
can neither be explained, nor understood, even by the 
most profound philologist. 



APPROVERS OF THE SYSTEM. 



Philadelphia, 

Dr. S. B. Wylie, Professor of Languages in Pennsylvania University. 

Rev. S. W. Crawford, Principal of the Academy connected with the 
University. Professor Espy. 

C. J. Ingersoll, Roberts Vaux, Wm. Meredith, D. P. Brown, Dr. W 
C. Brinckle, Dr. A. Comstock, Thomas A. Taylor, Mr. Slack, Mr. Good- 
fellow, David Maclure, Thomas M. Raser, E. Fouse, S. H. Wilson, 
Mr. Trego, Mr. Depuy, Mr. Ashton, Mr. Anderson, John Saunderson, 
J. M. Duncan, John Erhart, Dr. F. Plummer, &c. &c. 

Pittsburg. — R. N. Smith, John N. M'Nivins, Thomas H. Harris. 

Harrisburg. — James Maginnis, S. Douglas, A. T. Dean, A. L. 
Keagy, J. D. Rupp. 

New York. 

De Witt Clinton, E. Nott, President of Union College ; Professor 
Yates, Union College ; Rev. Samuel B. Blatchford, Rev. John Chester, 
Rev. C. G. Somers, Rev. D. H. Barnes, Rev. C. SchaefTer, Rev. Solomon 
Brown, Rev. D. Parker, C. M. Thayer, Charles Spaulding, L. S. 
Lownsbury. 

Utica. — Charles Barlett, William Barbour, Euridge Whiffen, G. 
Comstock, Wm. Williams, L. Bayley, E. Ames, (teachers.) 

Ithaca — Wm. Irving, George C. Freer, M. Baird, G. D. Beers, Isaac 
Day, A G. Dunning, K. Hulin, Mr. Davis. 

Homer. — Samuel B. Woolworth. 

Cazenovia. — Daniel M'Ewen, Daniel E. Burhans. 

Maryland. 

Rev. John Findlay, James Gould, Mr. Stewart, S. Jones, Mr. Pack- 
ard, J. Dyke, Mr. Mills, Wm. Wickes, E. Bennett, J. V. Berry, D. H. 
Bingham, David C. Rosco, C. Coleman, J. Brown. 

Mount St. Mary's Seminary. — Rev. James Lynch, J. Butler, John 
H. M'CafTery, James Curny, Mathew Taylor, Barnard O. Cavanagh, 
John M'Clasky, Edward Sourin, Edward Collins, Thomas Butler, (all 
professors.) 

District of Columbia* 

Rev. Thomas Wheat, Benjamin Hallowell, John R. Pierpoint, Mr. 
Allison, C. K. Gardner. 

Kentucky. 

S. J. Anderson, James Holton, R. Fleming, James Fleming, B. F. 
Reeves. 

The opinions of these gentlemen, are at the close of the 
book. 



BROWN'S 

ENGLISH SYNTAX INSTITUTION, 

No. 90, South Eighth St. 

IN WHICH 

THE CONSTRUCTIVE PRINCIPLES 

OF THE 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE 

ARE SO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED 

EY 

THE 8YNTASC0PE, 

AND SO CLEARLY EXPRESSED 

BY 

A NEW NOMENCLATURE, 

THAT THE PUPIL IN IT 

Can acquire a better knowledge of the Syntax 
of the English Phrenod 

IN A FEW DAYS 

Than he can ever acquire by the old British System 

OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 

The speed, and perfection with which any operation is performed, depend 
much upon the means employed. 

DESIGNED, 

First, To qualify those who wish to lecture upon the American System of English 
Syntax, to do so with credit to themselves, and with advantage to the public ; 

Secondly, To render that aid to those teachers who wish to use this system in their 
schools, which will enable them to do justice to their pupils ; and 

Tliirdly, To teach adults, and children of both sexes, who desire to acquire a tho' 
rough knowledge of the Syntax of the English Language in a few days, with- 
out the slavish process of memorizing opponent definitions, absurd rules, 
and irrelevant notes in unmeaning technicality . 



PHILADELPHIA. 
1839. 



(1) 



CHAPTER I. 

TRUTH, AND KNOWLEDGE. 

1. What is truth ? 2. What is knowledge ? 

Truth is a conformity of the thing signified to the sign 
used ; and knowledge is the apprehension of this confor- 
mity. (Appeal, page 218.) 

Illustration : Three marks, 111. 

The phrase, " three marks" is the sign used. The three 
marks are the things signified. The numeral agreement 
of the marks with the sign used, is that conformity which 
constitutes truth ; and the apprehension of this conformity, 
is knowledge. Unless there is this conformity of the thing 
pointed out, to the sign employed, there is no truth ; and, 
as knowledge is the apprehension of truth ; and, as there 
can be no truth in the absence of this conformity for the 
mind to apprehend, it follows that there is no knowledge 
in the mind where there is a want of this conformity of 
the thing denoted, to the sign used. This may be illus- 
trated in the following scheme : Six marks, 1111. 

Here the sign used is " Six marks" But, as there are 
not six marks in the group denoted, there is no apprehen- 
sion of truth in the case ; for that very conformity which 
constitutes truth, is wanting ! Now, there is truth in any 
art, or science in which there is a correspondence, a con- 
formity, an agreement between the terms, definitions, rules, 
and remarks, and the principles of the art, or science : and 
the student who apprehends this conformity, has know» 
ledge ; for the apprehension of truth is knowledge. 

Truth. Error. Error. 

1. Circle: 1. Circle: 1. Circles: 

o □ o 

2. Square: 2. Square: 2. Squares: 

D O □ 

3. Triangle: 3. Triangle: 3. Triangles. 

T .O I ,. 'I <\ 

It is seen, then, that truth is a conformity of the proto- 
type to the simple, or complex sign which is used ; and 

2 



2 DEFINITION. 

that error is a want of the conformity of the prototype to 
the simple, or complex sign used. Now, the science of 
English grammar is a complex prototype ; and the system 
which is presented in any book for the expression of this 
complex prototype, is the complex sign used. And in 
exact proportion to the conformity of this complex proto- 
type to the complex sign employed for its expression, the 
present popular system of English Grammar is true ; and 
in exact proportion to a want of this conformity, is this 
system erroneous. To ascertain, then, to what extent this 
system is true, or false, it will be necessary to examine 
the doctrines, the principles of the complex prototype, and 
the signology, the significancy of the complex sign which is 
used for the expression of these doctrines, these principles. 
Into this examination I now propose to enter with some 
degree of minuteness. And, should I not conduct the discus- 
sion with the candour of a Christian, and with the skill of 
a logician, it will be because these invaluable attributes are 
beyond my powers of attainment. 

Having taken what may be denominated the first step in 
the preliminaries to this discussion, I will pass on to the 
second ; and this I intend to take with great care ; this step 
consists in defining a definition, in showing what a defini- 
tion is. 

A DEFINITION. 

There is always something which makes the thing: 
and this something is here called the esse of the thing. 
(Esse, to be.) The esse of a thing is that certain part 
which makes the thing to be. The esse is the sine qua non 
part. That is, the esse is that part without which the 
thing could not be; as, the spring of a watch, or the 
weights of a clock. And a definition is that proposition 
which distinguishes, which points out the thing by its esse ; 
as, 

1. A watch is a time-piece which goes by a spring. 

2. A clock is a time-piece which goes by weights. 

1. That which is the esse of one thing, may not be the 
esse of another ; hence it does not follow because a spring 
is the esse of a watch, that it is the esse of a book. (Some 
books are bound with springs in their backs.) A time- 
piece without a spring, is not a watch : but a volume is a 
book without a spring. 



LANGUAGE. 3 

2. No thing has more than one esse. 

3. Every member of the same class must have the same 
esse. 

4. All the things which have the same esse, must belong 
to the same class. 

5. No things which have not the same esse, can belong 
to the same class. 

(See Svntascope, p. 8, and Appeal, p. 112.) 

1 . It is the province of a definition to point out one class 
from another. Hence we may give a definition of man ; 
but not of a man. 

2. It is the province of a description to point out one 
thing, or individual from another. Hence we describe a 
man ; but define man. A definition considers things in 
classes — but a description considers things as individuals. 

3. A definition can have no exception — a rule can have 
an exception. 

Let us now see whether the following proposition is a 
definition of language. 

1. A Language, or Tongue is a set of words made use 
of by any nation, or people, to communicate their thoughts 
to one another. — J. Newbeey. 

Language is the instrument or means of communicating 
ideas. — Webster's Grammar. 

Language is the principle vehicle of thought. 

G. Brown. 

Language, in its most extensive sense, comprehends all 
significant signs by which animals communicate intelli- 
gence from one to another. — J. Jones. 

It appears to me that grammarians have not been very 
happy in their attempts at defining a Language. They 
tell us in substance, that a Language is the medium 
through which men communicate their thoughts to each 
other. But it would seem from what appears to be a 
proper view of the subject, that a Language is the mere 
material out of which the medium for communicating 
thought is formed. It appears to me, that a sentence, or 
gnomod is the only medium through which men express 
their thoughts. If a man wishes to communicate to me 
the fact, or the complex thought that, he is sick, he does 
not seize a Language, as a huntsman would a gun, as the 



4 LANGUAGE. 

means by which to accomplish his object. He makes a 
draft of three, or four words, upon some Language which 
we both understand, and forms these words into a sentence ; 
and, through the medium of this sentence, he communicates 
the complex thought, 

"lam sick" 

Now, is the English Language the medium through 
which this thought is communicated, or is the sentence, " I 
am sick" this medium ? If this thought is communicated 
to me through the medium of the English Language, then, 
the sentence, " / am sick" is the English Language ! And, 
if this sentence is the English Language, the English 
Language has not quite so many words as Dr. Webster 
has enumerated ! The word, language, is not synonymous 
with the word, speech. In the phrase, " a Language" the 
word, Language, does not contemplate words in a combined 
state, but in an isolated, or detached state. The word, 
speech, however, contemplates words in a combined, or 
syntaxed condition. 

1. A language is the words from which any commmu- 
nity, people, or nation forms that sentensic, or gnomodic 
medium through which they communicate their thoughts. 
A language is the material ; and a. sentence is the medium 
which is constructed from this material. The bricks, be- 
fore employed by the mason, are as much the house itself \ 
as are the isolated words the medium of communicating 
thought ! 

The following propositions are submitted as substitutes 
for the old definition of language : 

1. A Language is a set of words out of which a nation , 
a people, or a community constructs sentences for the 
communication of their ideas. 

2, A Language is the significant material out of which 
a community of people, constructs sentences for the expres- 
sion of their thoughts. 

The esse of a language lies in its being the material out 
of which the vehicle of thought is constructed. That is, it 
is this relation of material to a sentence, the true vehicle 
of thought, which makes a set of verbal signs to be a lan- 
guage. The great principle is this, — whatever is employed 
as the material out of which sentences are formed, is a 



LANGUAGE. 5 

language. Hence, if sentences are constructed from pins, 
and needles, pins, and needles are a language. 

What the raw materials of a carriage are to this vehicle 
of pleasure, language is to the vehicle of thought. And if 
the raw materials out of which a carriage can be made, 
can be denominated a carriage, then indeed can the unsyn- 
taxed words, yes, precisely as they stand in the columns 
of the Spelling book, or the Dictionary, be called the 
vehicle for the communication of thought ! Our gram- 
marians, then, have committed the singular error of apply- 
ing the name of the thing formed, to the materials out of 
which it is formed ! Nay, more, for they have ascribed, 
through the medium of this error, the very function r the 
very instrumentality of the thing formed, to the materials 
out of which it is formed ! They say that language is 
the medium of communicating ideas ; I say that language 
is the material from which this medium is constructed ! In 
other words : they affirm that rags are the paper on which 
we write, and print : I say that rags are the materials out 
of which this paper is made ! 

1. The old : " Language is the vehicle of thought." 

2. The new : Language is the significant material out 
of which the vehicle of thought is constructed. And as a 
sentence is this vehicle, I shall resume this subject when 1 
come to speak of a sentence. 

Having stated, and illustrated my objections to the popular 
definition of language, I will submit to your consideration 
a few critical reflections upon the word, languge. 

There are three grounds upon which sound objections may 
be raised to the use of the word, language. The first ground 
is that this word is not calculated from its etymology, its 
derivation, to express, nor even to suggest, in the slightest 
degree, the relation, the connexion, which a language holds 
with the mind. Words have an intimate connexion with 
the mind : they not only have imports, significations, which 
reach, extend to the ideas of the mind, but they are created 
by the mind for the use of the mind : they are the material 
out of which that sentensic medium is formed, through 
which minds interchange their ideas, their thoughts. Every 
word in a language has a grasp upon some thought : and 
the moment the power of custom breaks a word's hold on 
thought, the word becomes obsolete : it dies. And the reason 
2* 



b LANGUAGE, 

why this state of death follows as a consequence of the 
word's being broken from thought, is that the very soul of 
a word is its connexion with thought : a word is a signifi- 
cant spirit, breathed into a shell, a frame-work of sound, 
ink, paint, or metal, and is kept alive by its action upon 
thought. The meaning of the word, language, as derived 
(meaning derived) from the etymology of the word, is 
tongue, or something produced by the tongue ! Lingua, the 
tongue. If, then, the tongue could produce a pain by 
pressing upon any portion of the mouth, this pain might 
with propriety be called language! A stove is called a 
Franklin, because it was produced by a Franklin. A 
machine which illustrates the motions, and phases of the 
planets in their orbits, is called an Orrery, because the earl 
of Orrery had something to do with this machine in its in- 
ceptive stage of formation. Upon the same principle the 
emotion of pain, or pleasure, which is produced by the 
tongue upon the mouth, lip, or hand, may be denominated 
language. Lingua, the tongue. But suppose the lips, nose, 
teeth, palate, and larynx should contribute their aid in the 
production of this pain in the mouth, or pleasure in the ear, 
would there be any more propriety in calling the emotion 
thus produced, language than larynx — any more propriety 
in naming this emotion in reference to the tongue, than 
there would be in naming it in reference to the lips, the teeth, 
the nose, or the palate 1 That there would not is proved 
from the fact that the Hebrews named language in refer- 
ence to the lips. This is obvious from the marginal ren- 
dering of the word, language, in the Old Testament. For 
instance: "And the whole earth was of one language, and 
of one speech" 

Margin : And the whole earth was " of one lip." 

Is it said that the tongue holds a higher rank in the pro- 
duction of speech than any other organ employed — and 
that, therefore, the speech takes the name of this organ in 
preference to that of any other ? Without the larynx, no 
voice, no sounds could be produced. As the loss of the 
tongue would not be so fatal to speech as that of the larynx, 
it follows that the larynx is the more important organ of the 
two ; consequently, if comparative importance in instru- 
mentality is to decide which name is to be applied, words 
would be called, not language, but larynx 1 Let us attempt 



LANGUAGE. 7 

to illustrate this fact : the machine which is used to illus- 
trate the motions, and phases of the planets in their orbits, 
was invented by George Graham, from whom Rowley, a 
workman, borrowed it, and made one for the Earl of Or- 
rery, after whom it was named by Sir Richard Steele. Now, 
if this machine must be named after any one who had any 
thing to do with it in its inceptive stage of existence, it should 
certainly be called after George Graham. Justice, taste, 
art, science, and judgment, therefore, demand that that ma- 
chine which is now called an Orrery, should be called a 
Georgegian, or a Gra-ham-i-an. And upon the same prin- 
ciple let the set of words of which we construct sentences, 
be called a larynx. But reflection has suggested a better 
name for this astronomical machine, than either Gra-ham- 
i~an, or Orrery ; and the world has applied it ; for these 
very machines are now styled planetariums. This is right, 
this is tasteful, scientific, and judicious. These machines, 
are connected with the planets, and should be named in 
reference to them. I propose something similar : I propose, 
not to discard the word, language, but to give a new name 
to our words, which shall express their relation to the mind 
in the same way that planetarium expresses the relation of 
the Orrery to the planets. Instead, therefore, of naming 
the medium of the mind in reference to the muscular cover- 
ing of the teeth, as did the Hebrews, or in reference to the 
instrument by which the dog laps his drink, as have the 
descendants of the Anglo Saxons, I propose to call it, and 
the significant verbal materials of which it is composed, 
Phrenod. Phrenod is constructed from the Greek elements, 
phren, the mind, and odos, a way, a means, a medium, and 
signifies the exalted highway over which mind travels to 
mind. 

I think I hear the objector reply, "Inconsistent!" In 
what ? How inconsistent ? 

* " You have spent much time to prove that the gramma- 
rians of the old school are in error, when they say that a 
language, a conventional set of signs, is " the principal 
vehicle of thought," " that language comprehends all sig- 
nificant signs by which animals communicate intelligence 
from one to another ; and you now, in your ow T n new name, 
and in your own definition of this set of signs, call them the 
great highway over which mind travels to mind ! Yes, your 



8 LANGUAGE. 

very word, phrenod, means an instrument, a means, a 7ne~ 
dium/" 

That I, in another place, call these very sigas which I 
here, both in the name which I have given to them, and in 
the definition which I have given of them, style a means, a 
medium, a way, the material out of which the principal 
vehicle of thought is constructed, is true. But I there de- 
fine them upon their relation to sentences, the principal 
vehicle of thought ; I here define them upon their connexion 
with the mind, with thought ! And have I not represented 
them throughout as holding these two relations ? I have 
presented them as significant materials with a fixed hold 
on thought, living by their action upon thought ! And am I 
now charged with inconsistency for saying that these signs 
are a means by which ideas may be raised in the mind ? 
The raising of unconnected ideas in the mind by unsyntaxed 
words, is a very different thing from the communicating 
of connected ideas by syntaxed words. Unsyntaxed words 
are signs which do not amount to speech ; and consequently, 
they do not constitute the medium of speech. All speech 
must be formed in the following manner : 

There must be a word to point out a thing, or a being ; 
and then to this word such other words must be conjected 
as will enable the speaker to express something to, or of, 
this thing, or being ; as, 

1. " John, thou art merciful. 5 ' (Affirmation.) 

2. "John, if thou art merciful." (Subfirmation.) 

3. John, art thou merciful 1 (Interrogation.) 

4. John, be thou merciful. (Command.) 

5. John, do be merciful. (Petition.) 

To express our ideas is to communicate what we think in 
relation to the thing, or the being which may be held before 
the mind by means of a single word. And the medium 
through which we do this, is the principal vehicle of 
thought. As no such communication can be made with- 
out an affirmation, a subfirmation, an interrogation, a com- 
mand, or a petition, it follows that an affirmation, a sub- 
firmation, an interrogation, a command, and a petition 
are the true medium through which we communicate our 
thoughts to each other. It is by these cordictions, (a cor- 
diction is the heart of speech) and by these only, that we 
inform others that we think in relation to the thing, or the 
being which we mention. Hence, in the first of the fore- 



LANGUAGE. 9 

going examples, I communicate to John what I think of him, 
through the medium of the affirmation which is produced 
by the assemblage of words, which is there formed. 

1. "John, thou art merciful" 

What do I think of him? According to the medium 
through which I communicate to him what I think of him, 
I think that he is merciful. But it will be said that this 
communication is made to him by the word, merciful. 
This word, merciful, points out an attribute ; but it surely 
does not communicate to John the fact that / think that this 
attribute belongs to him! The word, merciful, points out 
the thing which I think belongs to John. But does this 
word communicate, express to John, that I think that this 
attribute belongs to him ? Surely not. You see, then, that 
the signification of ideas, and the communication of ideas, 
are very different things ! To signify this attribute, I em- 
ploy the word, merciful : but to communicate to John the 
fact that I think that this attribute belongs to him, I form 
an affirmation. (To understand the exact character of a 
cordiction, an affirmation, a subfirmation, an interrogation, 
a command, and & petition, see the Syntascope, page 10.) 

An affirmation is the strongest verbal assurance which 
the mind can derive from words with respect to the thing 
advanced; as, Thou art merciful. (Syntascope, page 13.) 

2. & subfirmation is any degree of verbal assurance 
which is less than that which the mind receives from an 
affirmation; as, James, if thou art merciful. (Syntas- 
cope, page 13, 24, 26.) 

Here I mean to communicate to James what 1 think of 
him. I wish to inform him that I have connected, in my 
mind, the attribute of mercy with him. But, as I do not 
wish to give him full assurance that I think that this attri- 
bute is actually a part of him, I use a subfirmation as the 
medium for the communication of what I think. That is, 
I employ a sentence which is calculated to give his mind a 
less degree of verbal assurance respecting my firmness in 
the reality of that connexion than would be given by an 
affirmation. But could this particular thought be commu- 
nicated to .James by words in an unsyntaxed state — by 
words not formed into a sentence ? Is " if" competent to 
the communication of this certain thinking process in which 
I have connected mercy with James? Is the word, thou, 
competent to communicate this particular mental process 



10 LANGUAGE. 

by which my mind has connected mercy with James in this 
slender , this feeble way ? Is art a medium which is com- 
petent to do this work of communication from my mind to 
that of James ? Is merciful an ample means for the com- 
munication of the fact that I have taken up mercy in my 
mind, and carried it to James ; but that I do not know 
whether to leave it with him, or hot ? No, no ; the only 
ample medium through which this certain thinking of my 
mind can be expressed, communicated, carried to the mind 
of James, is that which is formed out of the significant 
materials, James, thou, if, merciful, and art. The instru- 
ment constructed from these materials, is a sentence. 

3. " Joseph, art thou merciful ?" 

Here I wish to communicate to Joseph that I desire to 
know from him whether the attribute of mercy belongs to 
him ] And is there any word in existence which is com- 
petent to carry this wish, this desire from my mind to that 
of Joseph 1 

4. " Nathaniel, be thou merciful." 

I desire to communicate to Nathaniel the fact that he 
must exercise mercy in his intercourse with his fellows. 

5. " Father, do be merciful." 

Here I want to express,- to communicate, to my father, 
that it is my strong desire that he should exercise mercy. 
"Hence I approach him through the means of a petition, a 
medium of communication, well calculated to incline him 
who is petitioned, to gratify the communicated desire of the 
petitioner. 

It is a curious fact, that words, by means of their dic- 
tionary significations, are competent to express all our ideas 
but five. Now, these five ideas which the dictionary import 
of words, is unable even to touch, are the five cordictions. 
And it is curious also to find that men have supplied this 
deficiency in dictionary function by giving to a certain class 
of words, an extra significant, or expressing power. This 
extra endowment consists in a capacity to express an affir- 
mation, an interrogation, a command, a petition, and a 
subfirmation. We examine our dictionary in vain to find 
a word whose affirmative power is its dictionary significa- 
tion. Every word which has an affirmative, or any other 
cordictive power, has also a dictionary signification ; as, 
" Moses smote the rock, John wrote this letter." The dic- 
tionary does not define the word, smote, and wrote, as 



LANGUAGE. 11 

meaning an affirmation, but as denoting certain actions. 
Hence the affirmative idea which is expressed in the above 
instances, is the result of the extra significant capacity with 
which men have endued these, and similar words, to enable 
them to denote an affirmation, an interrogation, a command, 
a petition, and a subfrrmation. 

The old school grammarians say that a language is a 
set of signs, which is the medium of communication from 
one mind to another. I have attempted to show that a lan- 
guage is not the medium through which the thoughts of one 
mind are communicated to another mind, but that the sen- 
tences which are constructed out of a language, are this 
medium. I have attempted to show that, while the words 
of a language are competent instruments by which to raise 
unconnected ideas in the mind, the sentences which are con- 
structed out of language, are the only competent medium 
through which to communicate connected thoughts, con- 
nected ideas from mind to mind. I have likewise attempted 
to show that the word, language, is totally incompetent to 
indicate that relation which both words, and sentences bear 
to the mind. And the point which remains to be settled, is 
this, have I been successful in these several attempts ? If I 
have, may I not hope that you will yield your ready assent 
to the adoption of a word which, while it is the name of 
both words, and sentences, is also the name of their exact 
relation to the mind. This name I think you will find in 
the word, phren-od. Phren, the mind, and odos, a means, 
a way, a medium ! " Phrenod" is more comprehensive 
than " language," in that, while the word, language, is 
restricted to words, the word, phrenod, is applied to both 
words, and sentences. Nor is this all, for while the word, 
language, strictly speaking, means something, or any thing 
which is produced by the tongue, the word, phren-od, sig- 
nifies the means, the medium of the mind. (Lingua, the 
tongue, phren, the mind, and odos, a means, a medium.) 



CHAPTER II.— SECOND GROUND. 

I shall now consider the second ground on which sound 
objections may be raised against the use of the word, lan- 
guage. 

The word, language, is derived from the Latin, lingua, 



12 LANGUAGE. 

the tongue ; hence their is no good ground for applying it 
to either printed, or written words. Printed words are not 
produced by the tongue; nor are written words formed 
with the tongue : how, then, can these kinds of words be 
called language ? We are told by the old school gramma- 
rians that words are called language because they are formed 
in part by the tongue ! By parity of reasoning, words 
might be called teeth ! For the teeth are one of the organs 
by which vocal words are formed ! But if the old school 
grammarians wish to name words in reference to the in- 
strument, the means employed in their formation, why do 
they abandon this principle in naming printed, and written 
words ? Why do they not follow out their principle, and 
call printed words printing-press, and written ones, pens ! 
If they follow out their principle they must do this ; but if 
they do not follow it out, why act upon it at all ? 

Let us now see if the same objection can be urged against 
the word, phrenod. This word is made from phren, the 
mind, and odos, a way, a means, a medium, and signifies, 
from its very etymology, the medium of the mind, without 
any reference to the organs by which this medium is form- 
ed, and without any regard to the materials from which it 
is formed. Yes, whether this mental medium is made by 
the means of the tongue, the teeth, the larynx, the press, 
the pen, the pencil, or the brush, of sound, ink, paint, or 
metal, its legitimate name is phrenod. 



CHAPTER III.— THIRD GROUND. 

In the third, and last place, I object to the word, lan- 
guage, as the technical name of the great medium for the 
communication of ideas from mind to mind, upon the ground 
of this word's inability to be so changed, so modified, in its 
form, and meaning, as to become the name of the science, 
or principles on which this medium is constructed. To il- 
lustrate this point, let us take the word, chemist, in its two 
cormos, or noun forms ; chemist, one versed in chemistry. 

Here the word has two forms, one denoting the science, 
and the other signifying the person skilled in the science. 

The name of the great medium through which mind 
travels to mind, should have the capacity of being so modi- 
fied in form, and signification, as to become the name of 



LEARNING. 13 

the science of this medium. What I mean, may be seen in 
the following forms of the word, pen : pen, penmanship. 

This form, pen, is the name of the instrument itself: this, 
penmanship, is the name of the art of using this instrument. 
The word, language, is incapable of any modification by 
which it can be made the name of the art of using the in- 
strument of which it is the name. We cannot vary the 
word, language, to denote the science, the principles of lan- 
guage : languagery is not only disagreeable to the ear, but 
inconsistent with all rules, and principles of modifying 
words. To denote the instrument itself, we use the word 
language ; but to signify the science, or the art of using 
this instrument, we use a distinct, a separate word, — we 
employ " grammar /" If we adopt the word phrenod, how- 
ever, we can employ one of" its cormos, or noun forms, as 
the name of the medium itself, and another, as the name of 
the science of this medium. 

1. Pren-od, the name of the medium for the communi- 
cation of thought from mind to mind. 

2. Phren-o-dy, the science of phrenods. English phre- 
nody is the science of the English phrenod. 

(The words which are used as the name of the science 
of language, will be considered in a separate chapter.) 



CHAPTER IV. 

The introduction of the word, phren-od, is not intended 
to displace its senior, language. The object in the forma- 
tion of phren-od, is to furnish a name that is more signifi- 
cant of the connexion which the great mental instrument 
has with the mind, and which is more expressive of the 
nature of its province in the communication of ideas, than is 
the old word which means the tongue. 

There is a great variety of phrenods — two, however, are 
all which need be mentioned here. They are phonod, and 
alphod. (Phone, a voice, a sound, and alpha a letter.) 
See English Syntax, p. 13. 

From the materials of which language is constructed, it is 
naturally divided into two kinds ; namely, vocal language, 
and letter language. Whether these two instruments for 
the communication of thought, are sufficiently distinct to 
entitle each to a distinct name, is not a point which I intend 

3 



14 LANGUAGE. 

to discuss in this work. Experience has abundantly 
shown that it becomes important to make a marked distinc- 
tion between them in teaching, and speaking. And it is 
somewhat singular that all who have aided in forming, and 
improving the English phrenod, have left us to make this 
distinction by the use of phrases — such as vocal language, 
verbal language, the language of sounds, spoken language, 
printed speech, letter language, &c. 

"Language, says the author of a popular English Gram- 
mar, is either spoken, written, or printed. 

" Speech, represented by characters, or letters, is called 
written, or printed language. Spoken words are called 
significant sounds because they signify, or mean some- 
thing." 

That this important distinction may no longer depend 
upon phrases, the author of the English Syntax has con- 
strued the following words which, ho trusts, convenience 
alone, will induce his country to adopt : 

Pho-nod, Al-phod, Pho-ne-pos, and Al-phe-pos. 

1. Pho-nod is constructed from phone, a voice, and odos, 
a medium, and means the vocal phrenod — or vocal medium 
of communicating ideas. 

2. Al-phod is constructed from alpha, a letter, and from 
odos, a medium, and means the letter phrenod — or the 
mental communicative medium which is composed of letters. 
Pho-ne-pos is constructed from phone, a voice, and epos, a 
word, and means a word constructed from voice, or sound. 
Al-phe-pos is constructed from alpha, a letter, and epos, a 
word, and means a word constructed from letters," as, in- 
com-pre-hen-si-bil-i-ty. PI. pho-ne-poi, al-phe-poi. The 
words, then, are : 

1. Phren-od, 2. Pho-nod, 3. Al-phod, 4. Pho-ne-pos, and 
5. Al-phe-pos. 
There are three other words which spring from these, 
that are employed to denote the respective sciences of these 
phrenods — Phren-o-dy, Pho-no-dy, and Al-pho-dy. 

1. English phrenody is the art of using the English 
phrenod with propriety. 

2. English phonody is the art of speaking the English 
phonod with propriety. 

3. English alphody is the art of writing the English 
alphod with propriety. 



GRAMMAR. 15 

Phren-o-dist, one skilled in phrenody. 

It is to be hoped that the time will come when the En- 
glish alphod will be constructed more in conformity to the 
English phonod. 

A phonod is natural — an alphod is artificial. A phonod 
is evanescent — an alphod is durable. A phonod is a me- 
dium through which we hear ideas — an alphod is a medium 
through which we see them. The phonod extends no far- 
ther than the instruments employed in its formation, can 
shake the dense air. But the alphod is the great histor- 
scope* through which a present generation may view all 
the past. 

OLD. NEW. 

Language, Phrenod. 

Vocal Language, Phonod. 

Printed, or written Language, Alphod. 

A vocal word, a Phonepos. 

A printed word, an Alphepos. 



CHAPTER V.— THE WORD, GRAMMAR. 

(For Stictures on the old definition of grammar, see the 
Appeal Chapter IV., page 112.) 

Having disposed of the word, language, and of the differ- 
ent definitions which the old school grammarians have 
given of language itself, I shall make a few reflections upon 
that word which they have employed as the name of the con- 
structive principles of language. That word is grammar. 

" Grammar" is from the Greek word, gramma, which 
means a letter. 

The word, grammar, has been applied, up to the present 
time to all the constructive principles of language for no 
better reason than that of its being, in its Greek costume, a 
sign of a mere elementary part of a printed word ! The 
word, orthography , however, which is so general in its deri- 
vative import, that it must extend to all the constructive 
principles of printed, and written speech, is brought down 
to the mere formation of letter words. 

The word orthography is just as applicable to the forma- 
tion of entire sentences, entire paragraphs, entire chapters, 

* Historia, history, and skopeo, to view. 



JLb PHILOLOGY. 

and to the formation of entire books, as to the formation of 
single words. 

This word is derived from orthos, right, .and grapho, to 
write. Hence there is no good reason why this word 
should not be applied to the just formation of entire books 
— for books are written as well as words ! The restriction 
of the word, orthography , to the fbrmation of mere words, 
and the extension of the word, grammar, the name of a 
mere letter, to all the constructive principles of language, 
shews that little pains have been taken to place the science 
of syntax upon a philosophic basis. 

Would it not be well for the British grammarians to take 
the following change into serious consideration, — 

English orthography is the art of using the English lan- 
guage with propriety. English orthography is divided into 
four parts, viz. Grammar, Etymology, Syntax, and Pro- 
sody. 

Grammar teaches the principles of forming words from 
letters. (Gramma, a letter.) 

The world, however, has not been satisfied with one name 
for the science of syntax : they have attempted to relieve 
the word, grammar, by the aid of the word, philology ! 
Hence the science of English Syntax is sometimes denomi- 
nated English Grammar, and sometimes English philology ! 
Philology is derived from phi-le-o, to love, and logos, a 
word, and signifies a love of words ! But what a vast dif- 
ference there is between the construction of words, and the 
love which a man may have for ivords ! / This word is 
defined in our dictionaries in the following manner : 

PHILOLOGY. 

1. " A love of words, or a desire to know the origin and 
construction of language." 

There is nothing in the etymology of the word, which 
fully justifies the sense which is given in the following part 
of this definition : 

"Ora desire to know the origin, and construction of 
language." 

But still I am disposed to say that I do not think the 
giving of this sense to the word, is altogether without foun- 
dation. 

2. "That branch of literature which comprehends si 



rillLOLOGY. 17 

knowledge of the etymology, or origin, and combination 
of words." 

Here I think is a total departure from the etymology of 
the word: philology is here defined to be a branch of 
literature ! that is, the lone for a science is converted into 
the science itself! ! The word, -philology, means nothing 
but a love for words : upon what principle, then, can this 
word become the name of the science of words. Philology 
is constructed from the Greek words, phi-le-o, to love, and 
logos, a word. But to justify the above use of the word, 
philology, phileo should mean, not love, but science ! Is 
the analogy between love, and science so very great, that 
the very word which means one can be applied to the other 
without an abuse of language? 

3. " Grammar, the construction of sentences, the use of 
words in language." 

Here we are informed that philology is the use of words ! 
Is there any thing in art, or science, which this word, phi- 
lology, cannot be made to mean ? 

4. " Criticism, the interpretation of authors." 

5. " The affinities of different languages." 

t). " Whatever relates to the history or present state of 
languages." 

7. " Rhetoric, poetry, history, and antiquities" 
Rhetoric has to do with figures ; poetry with rhyme, and 
measure; history with peace, and war, defeats, and victo- 
ries ; and antiquities with the monuments, coins, inscrip- 
tions, edifices, fragments, offices, habiliments, weapons, 
manners, ceremonies, and games of ancient times ! Thus 
the word, philology, which, from its derivation, can mean 
nothing but a love of words, is made to range through the 
past, and the present, in search of every thing within these 
two epochs, upon which the human mind can fix ! Yes, the 
tower of Babel, with its erection, and destruction on the 
memorable plains of Shinar, and the simple art of English 
grammar, are all scientifically brought into the same cate- 
gory, and all, most distinctly marked, clearly parcelled out, 
by this one word, philology ! ! Yes, the rash, inglorious 
expedition of the confident Mardonius, with the design of 
Darius, his father-in-law, to invade Greece, and avenge 
himself on the Athenians, and the simple art of English 
grammar, are all reduced upon a plan of methodical sim~ 
3* 



18 , PHILOLOGY. 

plicity, to the same class, and all distinguished by this one 
ear mark, philology ! Nor is this all, for the ancient gods, 
and goddesses, with the innumerable train of events over 
which they presided, are all, by the magical powers of this 
one word, philology, made to hold the relation of brother- 
hood with the simple art of English grammar ! ! And now, 
upon what principle in the use of words, has the word, phi- 
lology, received this mighty breadth of application? Is its 
range of application founded upon that signification which 
the word derives from its two Greek elements, phileo, and 
logos ? Or is the unlimited application of this word, placed 
upon some analogy existing between the love for a word, 
and all creation besides? But what analogy there is between 
the tower of Babel, and a love of a word, or between the 
love for a word, and the confusion of speech, is a point in 
the doctrine of similarities, which ordinary minds can 
hardly discover ! True, if, as some writers say, this im- 
perishable pile was divided into eight separate towers, there 
would seem to be a striking analogy between the entire 
temple, and a language which is divided into ten parts of 
speech ! But, then, what has this point of analogy to do 
with a love of a word ! ? If, too, as all writers state, this 
tower was above half a mile in circumference, and of a vast 
height, it must have borne a close analogy to the hill of 
science, and consequently, may well be called philology ! ! 

The substitute for grammar, and philology is 

" SYNTAX." 

u The elements of this word are sun, and tasso. — Greek. 
Sun signifies together; and tasso means to put properly* 
The word, syntax, then, means to put things together in a 
proper manner. 

" Suntasso" from which syntax has been derived, was 
used among the Greeks to denote the idea of the proper 
arrangement of soldiers for martial action, for military ex- 
ploit. Hence this word (syntax) becomes a suitable name 
of all the constructive evolutions which form sounds into 
monothongs, letters into monograms, monothongs, and mo- 
nograms into words, words into monos, monos into sen- 
tences, sentences into paragraphs, paragraphs into chapters, 
and chapters into a book. 

A mono is any portion of a sentence, which can be ana- 
lyzed by itself; as, [He went~\ (to Boston) ( , last week.) 



DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 19 

(See English Syntax, page 19, and English Syntas- 
cope, page 28, 217.) 



CHAPTER VI.— DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 

1. "English Grammar is the art of speaking, and wri- 
ting the English language with .propriety." — Murray". 

2. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, and writing 
the English language with propriety. — Lennie." 

3. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, and writing 
the English language with propriety. — Comly." 

4. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, and writing 
the English language correctly. — Goold Brown." 

5. " English Grammar teaches us to speak, and write the 
English language correctly. — Roswell C. Smith." 

6. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, and writing 
the English language with propriety. — French." 

The first remark which may be made upon the above 
definitions, is that each obviously violates a plain principle 
of the very science which they all attempt in vain to define. 
That they should fail of denning the art of grammar, is 
nothing strange : nor is it any thing singular, that they 
should all be found faulty in construction. But, that they 
should all be marred with the same impropriety, is not only 
singular, but somewhat surprising. The use of the three 
words, speaking and writing, for the word, using, is a 
pleonasm which is not so singular in itself as in its multi- 
plications. In correcting Mr. Murray, I shall of course, 
correct those whom he has led into error in construction, 
and doctrine : 

English Grammar is the art of using the English lan- 
guage with propriety. 

The objection to the doctrine of the above definition is 
that it embraces the whole science of the English language ! 
The definition includes signology which is taught by a 
Dictionary, and not by a Grammar, and rhetoric which 
is taught by a Rhetoric, and not by a Grammar ! (See 
Appeal, page 112.) 

That the above definitions of grammar have led to erro- 
neous views upon the true boundary lines of this science, is 
obvious from the following definitions of it : 

1. " Grammar is the science of language. The objec* 



20 DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 

of grammar is to investigate the principles of speech, and 
to teach the right use of words." — J. Jones. 

2. "Grammar is the science of language." — Samuel 

KlRKHAM. 

These two definitions have obviously sprung from the 
lax phraseology of Murray's attempt to define this science. 
He says that, 

" English grammar is the art of speaking, and writing the 
English language with propriety." 

Whereas upon a very little investigation it will he seen 
that English grammar is but a mere part of the art of 
speaking, and writing the English language with propriety. 
The science of language respects all the principles of 
speech. To learn, or to teach the art, or science of using 
any language with propriety, as many as three books are 
necessary; namely, a Grammar, a Dictionary, and a 
Rhetoric. 

1. A Grammar teaches that part of the art of using a 
language with propriety, which consists of the formation, 
the modification, and the arrangement of words. 

2. A Dictionary teaches that part of the art of using 
a language with propriety, which consists of the literal 
import, or meaning of words. 

3. A Rhetoric teaches that part of the art of using a. 
language with propriety, which consists of the exact adapt- 
ation of the words to the nature of the occasion, and to 
the figurative character of the ideas designed to be expressed 
by the writer, or speaker. 

Again. Mr. Murray has divided the whole of this art 
" into four parts, viz. Orthograhy, Etymology, Syntax, 
and Prosody." 

Now, in defining these four parts, the author loses more 
than half of what is included in his definition of English 
grammar ! 

1. "Orthography teaches the nature, and powers of 
letters, and the just method of spelling words." 

2. " Etymology is the second part of grammar, which 
treats of the different sorts of words, their various modifi- 
cations, and their derivation." 

3. " Syntax is the third part of grammar, which treats 
of the agreement^ and construction of words in a sentence." 

4. " Prosody is the fourth part of grammar, which 
teaches the true pronunciation of words, comprising accent, 



DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 21 

quantity, emphasis pause, and tone i and the laws of versi- 
fication" 

These four parts, as here set out, do not comprise even 
half as much as the entire definition as given by Murray, 
and his followers. But the parts ought to be equal to the 
whole! The definition embraces all that can be said of 
language ; but the parts into which this definition is divided, 
omit perspicuity of expression, purity of style, propriety 
of language, precision of words, and phrases, clearness of 
sentences, unity of sentences, strength of sentences, figures 
of speech, and punctuation ! 7 Mr. Murray himself enume- 
rates these branches, and warmly recommends all to attend 
to them as soon they shall have acquired a knowledge — of 
what? Why, a knowledge of English Grammar ! ! That 
is, after the student shall have acquired the art of speaking, 
and writing the English language with propriety, he ought 
to attend to these parts in order that he may be able to 
speak, and write it with accuracy!! 

" English Grammar is the art of speaking, and writing 
the English language with propriety" 

This definition includes too much ; or the works which 
present it, do not include enough. The definition says that 
English Grammar is the whole art of using the English 
language with propriety ; and yet the very books, the very 
English Grammars which give this definition, make no 
attempt to teach the Dictionary meaning of words ! If the 
old definition of English Grammar is sound, there should 
be added to the works which are called English Grammars, 
a full Dictionary, and a complete Rhetoric : the literal 
meaning of words can not be learned without a Dictionary ; 
and the figurative meaning of them cannot be acquired 
without a Rhetoric. 

Let us see what Dr. Webster says of Grammar. 

6. " Grammar, as a science, treats of the natural connexion 
between ideas and words which are the signs of ideas, and 
develops the principles of all languages !" 

The above is a better account of signology than of 
grammar I Signology is a science which treats of the 
(not natural) connexion of words with ideas, and develops 
the significant principles of all languages. 

Dr. Webster proceeds : 

" These principles, {principles of language) are not arbi- 
trary, nor subject to change, but fixed, and permanent, being 



22 DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 

founded on facts, and distinctions which are founded by nature! 
Thus the distinction between the sexes, between things, and 
their qualities, between the names of substances, and (the 
names) of their actions, or motions ; between unity, and plurali- 
ty ; between present, and future time, and some other distinc- 
tions, are founded in nature, and give rise to different species 
of words, and to various inflections in all languages." 

Nothing is more unsound than the doctrine that the prin- 
ciples of language are not subject to change. Mr. Webster 
has confounded the subject of language with that of nature. 
And I presume that when he declares that language is not 
arbitrary, he intends to say that nature is not arbitrary, but 
fixed, and permanent ! That is, the sexes are not the arbi- 
trary conventional productions of men, not the changeable 
creatures of human communities, but the fixed, permanent 
gifts, or distinctions of nature herself! Or in other words, 
the fact that John is a man, and not a woman, and that 
Sarah is a woman, and not a man, is not the result of any 
conventional agreement among men, but of nature, and of 
her alone ! If, however, this distinguished grammarian 
means to tell us that the fact that the word, John, represents 
a male, and not a female, and the fact, that the word, Sarah, 
is the name of a female, and not of a male, is not arbitrary, 
is not changeable, but is fixed, and permanent, in short, is 
the result of nature, I must dissent. Indeed there would 
be much difficulty in persuading me, even by all the means 
which can be brought to bear upon this subject, that nature 
has any agency in fixing the application of the word, John, 
to a male, and the word, Sarah, to a female. Nothing 
could convince me that this is the fact but ocular demon- 
stration of the attachment, the appendage, of these words to 
their respective sexes at the very time of their birth ! I must 
see that nature has fixed John to a male, and Sarah to a 
female by her own type, before I can agree with this great 
scholar in ascribing to nature an uncontrollable sway over 
the science of speech ! If words are produced, inflected, 
modified, and applied by nature, how does it happen that 
the same word has so many significations as this learned 
author has given to the word, philology ? Is nature as va- 
rious in character as he has made "philology" in meaning !? 
How does it happen too, if words are under the control of 
nature, that the same word is applied both to males, and 
females ; as, person, servant, teacher, who, which, bird, 
child, friend, &c. &c. ? Do we find nature thus duplicating 



DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 23 

the functions of her acknowledged works ? Does she re- 
quire the eye to see, and hear too ? Will it be said that the 
being who is called a person, has no sex, and, consequently, 
the word, person, is under no control from any natural gen- 
der 1 This can not be urged. 

But, if nature is the basis of the structure of speech, how 
is it that not only words become obsolete, but inflections also ? 
What has caused the inflection, den, in the word, stride, to 
fall into decay — stridden ? What rude hand has so far 
assailed nature, the basis of speech, as to wrench the den 
inflection of ride from its natural place — ridden ? What, 
too, has arrested the deflection, writ, on its way through 
life 1 Nature still lives, and should afford succour to all her 
children ! " Writ" was once the flourishing, blooming 
form into which write threw itself to mark past time ! if 
this past-tense form of write, was the work of nature, and 
nature has not sustained it, who will predict the perpetuity 
of write itself? 

It seems that nature, or men, once proposed the word, 
disopinion, to be used in the sense of difference of opinion. 
Now, did nature put her veto upon the passage of this pro- 
position; or did man's frigid look of disapprobation so 
benumb this verbal bantling that it had no power to creep 
into manhood 1 And what is it which rejected the following 
verbal deformity, bescumber ? B. Jonson proposed it — 
and did man, or did nature, or did both flee from it ! Think 
you, if the community of England had taken this novus 
verbum into their literary service, that nature, under a Quo 
Warranto, would have proceeded to inquire of that distin- 
guished people, by what warrant, by what authority, by 
what right they had made it a part of the diction of that 
far-famed island ? 

A proposition has been made also to make besee a word ! 
This alphabetic concretion, however, has not become a 
portion of our language. The proposition was made by 
Wickliffe. But did he make the proposition to nature ? 
No, no. He made it to the community of which he was a 
member — he made the proposition to the human family to 
adopt this alphabetic terror as a portion of their medium of 
speech. He made the proposition by using this alphabetic 
convention ; and his race rejected his proposition by not 
using it. 

" Thus the distinction between the sexes, between things, 



24 DEFINITION OF GSAMMAE. 

and their qualities, between the names of substances, and of 
their actions, or motions, between unity, and plurality, be- 
tween 'present, and future time, and some other distinctions 
are founded in nature, and gives rise to different species of 
words, and to various inflections in all languages." 

Let us now ask this simple question : what is founded in 
nature ? The distinction between the sexes is founded in 
nature. What else is founded in nature ? The distinction 
between things, and their qualities, is founded in nature. 
This is all very true : but while nature makes these dis- 
tinctions in her works, she points out no exact method to 
man by which he is to express these distinctions. In very 
many instances indeed the distinction of sex in our language 
must be sought from the context itself, from the nature of 
the proposition, from the circumstances of the case. 

True, nature makes a distinction between the quality, 
and its subject. But nature does not point out the means 
by which men shall express this distinction ! This distinc- 
tion is expressed different ways in different languages. 
And even in the same language there is a variety of ways 
of expressing this very distinction ! The distinction is one 
thing ; the method of expressing it is another. With the 
distinction itself nature has every thing to do — but with the 
means of expressing this distinction nature has nothing to 
do ! For instance : In the following words, and forms of 
words, we find nine modes of expressing the quality of 
accuracy : correctness, correct, correctly, accuracy, accu* 
rate, accurately, propriety, proper, properly ! 

But it is said by Dr. Webster in the subjoined part of his 
sentence which he offers as a definition of grammar, that 
these distinctions give rise to different species of words : 

" And gives rise to different species of words, and to various 
inflections in all languages." 

Is it possible that the distinctions which nature has made 
in her works, give lise to different species of words, and 
various infections ? Accuracy denotes a quality; and yet 
accuracy is a noun : pen denotes, not a quality, but an 
instrument ; and, yet pen is a noun ! Accurate denotes a 
quality, and accuracy denotes a quality ; and-, yet accu- 
rate is an adjective, and accuracy a noun ! 

If Dr. Webster's doctrine is sound, all words denoting 



DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 25 

qualities, should be of the same species, or of the same part 
of speech ! But is it so? Examine for yourselves : 
Quality. 

1. Accuracy. Noun. 

2. Accurate. Adjective. 

3. Accurately. Adverb. 

But Dr. Webster does not stop here: he proceeds as 
follows : 

" The distinction between the names of substances, and the 
names of their actions, or motions, gives rise to different species 
of words, and to various inflections in all languages. " 

This is so far from being true, that the very same word 
which is the name of the substance is the name of the action 
of the substance : this is not rare, but common. 

Noun. Verb. 

1. The judge will judge us all. 

Noun. Verb. 

2. This man will man the ship. 

Noun. Verb. 

3. That ship did ship the articles. 

Noun. Verb. Noun. 

4. Love will love love. 

Noun. Verb. 

5. This plow will plow well. 

Noun. Verb. 

6. His order will order him to return. 

Noun. Verb. 

7. Water does water the plants. 

Noun. Verb. 

8. My note will note that fact. 

Noun. Verb. 

9. This punch did punch the brad. 

Noun. Verb. 

10. This pen did pen these lines. 

Let us now give some instances in which the name of the 
action, or motion is a noun : 

1. The race was run last week. 

2. The flight of the bird was high. 

3. Investigation is his employment. 

4. He is never found in the act of decursion. 

5. They are engaged in the act of dedication. 

(See Appeal, page 208.) 
All the italic words in the above instances, and thousands 
of others, are the names of actions — yet these words are 
nouns. What, then, becomes of Mr. Webster's doctrine, 

4 



26 DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 

that the distinction which nature has made between the sub- 
stance, and its action, gives rise to different species of 
words ? It is not the hind of thing denoted, which deter- 
mines the grammatical species of words. Words may 
denote action, and be nouns ; they may denote action, and 
be verbs. 

The dictionary import, the general signification of a word, 
is not the true basis for its syntax classification. And I 
undertake to say that the cause of which our present desti- 
tution of a correct system of English Grammar, is the effect, 
may be found in the error which all have committed upon 
the very threshhold of their essays to form a system of de- 
finitions, and rules for the full expression of the constructive 
principles of our language to the juvenile mind. The im* 
port, the meaning of words, has been made by all gramma- 
rians, the only principle for the classification of the words in 
a sentence. Hence, as nouns, verbs, pronouns, prepositions, 
conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs, may signify the same 
ideas, the pupil, teacher, grammarian, and philosopher, 
have ever been unable to find that clear line of distinction, 
which all grammarians have attempted to draw in their clas- 
sification of the words of a sentence. For instance : of, my, 
John's, own, have, and owns, all denote the idea possession, 

1. This is the hat of John. Of, a preposition. 

2. This is John's hat. Johrfs a noun. 

3. This is my own hat. My, a pronoun ; oivn, an ad- 
jective. 

4. They have three hats. Have, a verb. 

5. They own three houses. Own, a verb. 

II. The words, resembles, resemblance, similar, similar- 
ity, like, likeness, analogous, analogy, all denote the same 
general idea, viz. the relation, or quality of resemblance. 

1. He resembles me. Resembles, a verb. 

2. There is a resemblance between us. Resemblance, a. 
noun. 

3. This is a similar circumstance. Similar, an adjec- 
tive. 

4. There is a similarity between those books. Simila- 
rity, a noun. 

5. These two books are like mine. Like, an adjective. 

6. The likeness between them is obvious. Likeness, a 
noun. 

7. The cases are analogous. Analogous, an adjective. 



DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 27 

8. The analogy between the cases, is clear. Analogy, 
a noun. 

III. It is said a verb signifies being, or action, or some state 
of being. But many nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and even 
interjections express the same things. 

1. An adjective denotes action ; as, a quivering leaf, run- 
ning water, flying clouds, a breathing body. 

Adjectives denote some state ; as, I am well, she is sick, 
he is dead, they are safe, we are afraid, John is alive, 

2. Nouns denote some state ; as, He is a man of grief, 
he is a man of sorrow, he is in great distress of mind, and 
body, I have great misery, 1 am in constant fear. 

3. Prepositions denote some state ; as, he is under a mill- 
stone, he is under a tyrant, I am placed over, not under, 
these men, he is in good heart. 

4. Adverbs denote some state ; as, he is out of temper, he 
fell out with his friend, he fell in with this gentleman in June 
last, one is, but the other is not. Here not signifies a state 
of nonexistence. 

IV. Nouns, and adjectives may denote the same ideas ; 
as, a man of virtue, a virtuous man, a man of merit, a me- 
ritorious man, he is a man of worth, he is a worthy man. 

V. Nouns, and adverbs denote the same ideas ; as, he 
writes with accuracy, he writes accurately. 

VI. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs denote the same 
ideas ; as, he is a man of merit, they merit praise, he is a 
meritorious man, he conducted himself meritoriously. 

Now, is there any one who can not see from the pre- 
ceding exhibition, that the British English grammarians 
have attempted what can never be accomplished ; namely, 
a consistent classification of words upon their significa- 
tions ? 

There is much contention among grammarians respect- 
ing the number of the parts of speech. Some of the old 
school contend for six, some for eight, some for nine, and 
some for ten. Now, as the number of the parts of speech 
must necessarily depend upon the "principle of classifica- 
tion, there may be but one part, and there may be as 
many parts as there are words in a language. If words 
are classed upon their exact Dictionary import, the Eng- 
lish language would have seventy, or eighty thousand parts 
of speech. But, if words are classed upon the number of 
syllables which each w T ord contains, there would be but 



28 



DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 



four parts of speech, viz. monosyllable, dissyllable, trisyl- 
lable, and polysyllable* 

Specimen of Parsing. 

He surely understands geography. 

He, - a monosyllable. 

sure-ly, a dissyllable. 

un-der -stands, a trisyllable. 

ge-og-ra-phy, a polysyllable. 

No word can be found which does not fall into one of the 
above classes. 

The above is one among a thousand bases on which words 
may be classed ; each basis giving a different number of 
parts, or classes. But, among all these bases of classifica- 
tion, there is but one which is sound; there is but one which 
is calculated to give the true constructive principles of 
our language : that one is the frame-work philosophy, the 
syntax, the construction of a phrenod. 

The words of a sentence hold the same sustaining, and 
dependent relation to each other, which the component parts 
of any other frame-work hold to one another. Hence the 
words of a sentence, like the constituent parts of any other 
frame-work, are all relatives. They are constructive, 
frame-work relatives, for they hold a frame- work relation 
with each other. But in reply it may be said that the words 
of a sentence do not come in contact with each other, and, 
consequently, a sentence can not be considered a frame- 
work. It is not necessary, however, that there should be a 
physical, a material contact of the parts to render the as- 
semblage a frame-work. This may be seen in the follow- 
ing cut. 




In this cut there are two distinct frame-works ; yet the 
different parts of neither hold what may be denominated a 
contact relation. A, B, C, D, E constitute one frame-work 
whose parts are connected by adaptation, by fitness, by 
sense. These are all frame-work relatives. 

The parts, a, b, c, form another frame- work ; hence, a, 



DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 29 

b, and c are constructive, syntax relatives. These relatives 
are divided into cormes, and clades. That is, into founda- 
tional, and unfoundational relatives. A is a corme ; and B, 
C, D, and E are clades. (Syntascope, page 69.) 

1. A Piirenod is a frame-work of signs, employed hy- 
men for the communication of their ideas. 

2. Syntax is a science which treats of the constructive 
principle of a phrenod. 

To construct is to build, to form. The word, construct, 
is derived from the Latin element, con, together, and struo, 
to arrange, to pile up. Hence, it is natural enough, that 
construct should mean the process, or act, of placing the 
parts of a thing according to some fixed principles of ar- 
rangement. 

The word, construction, may mean the act of building, or 
forming ; it may mean also the particular form which the 
thing receives from being constructed ; and it may mean 
the manner in which the constituent parts of the thing con- 
structed, are put together. 

Perhaps, you will ask whether the word, syntax is syno- 
nymous with the word, construction. The word construc- 
tion, is no more synonymous with the word, syntax, than the 
word, boy, is with the word, Nathaniel. 

Boy. Nathaniel. 

" Boy" is general in its application — it means not only 
the same being to which the word, Nathaniel, applies, but 
it -includes all the other beings of the same class. " Con- 
struction," like boy, is general ; but " syntax," like " Na- 
thaniel," is special, particular. 

C James, 
General, boy. Particular, < Joseph, 

£ Nathaniel, 
f red, 
I yellow, 
General, colour. Particular, \ blue, 

i black, 
L scarlet, 
r architecture, 
mechanism, 
General, construction, Special,-^ organization, 

anatomy, 
t syntax, &c. 



30 



GRAMMAR. 



1. If the construction belongs to a house, we call it, (the 
construction) architecture. 

2. If the construction belongs to a machine, we call it 
mechanism. 

3. If the construction belongs to trees, or plants, we call 
it organization. 

4. If the construction belongs to an animal body, we call 
it anatomy. 

5. If the construction belongs to a work, or a sentence, 
or to a language, we call it syntax. 

We speak of the architecture of a house, a temple, a 
bridge, a fortification, &c, as fine, or otherwise. But we 
never speak of the mechanism of a house. Nor do we ever 
speak of the anatomy of a watch, or the syntax of a clock : 
we say the mechanism of a watch, the mechanism of a 
clock. Nor do we say the organization of a word, the 
organization of a sentence, the organization of a lan- 
guage. We say the syntax of a word, the syntax of a 
sentence, the syntax of a language. 

" A phrenod, is a frame- work of signs, used by men for 
the communication of their ideas." 

In what way language is a frame-work, grammarians of 
the old school seem unable to comprehend. They appear 
to be willing to understand no system which is not com- 
posed of actors, actions, and objects ! Now, actors, actions, 
and objects may hold a conspicuous place in a system of 
metaphysics ; but how they can become parts of a system 
of grammar, is not so very clear. But, is it not strange that 
these grammarians, after making actors, actions, being, and 
objects, the principal parts of their system, should proceed 
upon the ground that language itself is an abstract nothing, 
and a sentence the mere child of the imagination? Lan- 
guage, considered in its true character, seems to be as tan- 
gible as a clock ; and a sentence as much a piece of me- 
chanism as a watch. A sentence is a frame-work of words. 
A word is a sort of house, a kind of temple, constructed of 
sound, ink, paint, metal, or other matter, and is occupied 
by the meaning, the signification itself. Thus a sentence 
is a little village, a cluster of buildings, various in their 
shape, size, and occupants. Thus, too, while a chapter is 
a whole ward of a verbal city, and a sentence one block of 



GRAMMAR. 31 

houses in this ward, a whole book is the entire city, peopled 
by those significant citizens that are engaged exclusively in 
the commerce of ideas. Language, then, is a frame-work 
whose constructive principles are not derived from actors, 
action, and objects, and, therefore, can never be developed 
by any system of grammar which makes these its founda- 
tion. Grammar concerns the mechanism of the language, 
not the actors, actions, and objects which the words of 
a sentence denote. Hence, he who attempts to make a 
book to unfold the syntax, the mechanism of any language, 
should confine himself to constructive principles. To say 
what a word in any sentence means, is to leave the frame- 
work, the architecture of the house for its occupants. Bear 
this in mind : the grammarian is not to teach the nature 
of the liquid, but to illustrate the construction of the vessel! 
In other words, it is not the province of the grammarian to 
describe the fruit, but to teach the frame- work of the basket 
which contains the fruit. 

Mr. Webster continues as follows : 

" The grammar of a particular language, is a system of 
general principles, derived from natural distinctions of 
words, and of particular rules, deduced from the customary 
forms of speech in the nation using that language." 

The grammar of a particular language is not a system of general, 
but of special principles ! 

This system of principles is not derived from natural distinctions of 
words. Indeed, if the distinctions among words, are the production 
of nature, nature is without any uniformity whatever; for according to 
the sentence quoted above,, she is different in different nations ! 

" The grammar of a particular language is a system of 
general principles derived from natural distinctions of words, 
and of particular rules deduced from the customary forms 
of speech in the nation using that language !" 

But how can a system of general principles be deduced from parti- 
cular forms 1 

Mr. Webster continues : 

" These usages are mostly arbitrary, or incidental ; but 
when they become common to a nation, they are to be con- 
sidered as established, and received as rules of the highest 
authority /" 

And yet this distinguished man has spent a long life in opposing 
these very rules ! ! Yes, in relation to these very rules he remarks : — 



32 GRAMMAR. 

44 It is the last effort I shall make to arrest the progress 
of error on this subject. It needs the club of a Hercules, 
wielded by the arm of a giant, to destroy the hydra of edu- 
cational prejudice. The club and the arm I pretend not to 
possess, and my efforts may be fruitless ; but it will ever 
be a satisfaction to reflect that I have discharged a duty de- 
manded by a deep sense of the importance of truth. It is 
not possible for me to think with indifference that half a 
million of youth in our schools are daily toiling to learn 
that which is not true. It has been justly observed, that 
ignorance is preferable to error.'' 9 

In a preceding paragraph, Mr. Webster says, that these usages are 
founded in natural distinctions of words — yet in the sentence now under 
consideration, he says that. the usages which constitute the grammar 
of a language, are " mostly arbitrary or incidental." 

" These usages are mostly arbitrary or incidental ; but 
when they become common to a nation, they are to be con- 
sidered as established, and received as rules of the highest 
authority." 

And yet Mr. Webster, in another book, holds the following language : 

" In the gradual progress of language, many words ac- 
quire new meanings, while the old ones become obsolete ! ! 
So numerous are such instances, that between thirty and 
forty thousand definitions are contained in this work, 
which are not known to exist in any other" ! ! (A house 
divided against itself cannot stand.) 



ARTICULATION. 33 

I 

Chapter VII.- — The word, Articulation. 

Before I say any thing upon the word, articulation, it 
may be well enough to mention, that articulation is a rejected 
part of English grammar ! at least it has not been in my 
power to bring articulation into any of the four parts into 
which the old school grammarians have divided this science. 
It certainly does not belong to orthography, for this part 
is confined to the nature, and power of letters, and the just 
method of spelling words. To articulate is to form sounds ; 
but to spell, is to represent sounds by letters ! Arti- 
culation, and orthography, then, are heterogeneous parts, 
and can not fall under one subdivision head ! That these 
parts are not homogeneous, is obvious from the fact that a 
knowledge of one does not give skill in the other ! A man 
may form words of letters with the utmost accuracy, with- 
out being able to form them at all of articulate sounds ! 

Where will articulation find a place ? Etymology dis- 
owns it ; syntax renounces it ; and prosody has no room 
for it ! English grammar, then, must comprise five parts, 
namely, articulation, orthography, etymology, syntax, 
and prosody. 

The word. 
That a clear, and ready apprehension of any subject, 
not already understood, depends much upon the exact adap- 
tation of the technical terms which are employed by the 
writer, is a principle which is too well established to require 
much farther comment. What the profile is to the face, 
the technicals of a system, are to the principles of the sci- 
ence which the system is designed to develop : for, as a 
recognition of the person intended, depends upon the cor^ 
respondence of the profile to the face which it is intended 
to portray, so an apprehension of the principles intended, 
depends upon the agreement between the technical terms 
employed, and the principles to be expressed. If the pic- 
ture is not a just presentation of some particular person, it 
will be hard to apply it with any degree of certainty. And, 
if the picture is not sufficiently descriptive of him for whom 
it is designed, no one will be able by the picture itself to 
designate him for whom it is drawn. In the usual system 
of English grammar, the whole seems inverted, or con- 
fused: the picture of a man is put for a horse ; and the 



34 ARTICULATION. 

picture of a horse for a man ! ! And in many instances the 
terms used stand for nothing which can be found within the 
entire range of the science, any more than does the follow- 
ing cut stand for some being in the animal kingdom ! 




The word, articulation, is derived from articulus, a 
joint. The very name applied to the process of forming 
vocal words, sets out with the idea that the sounds in 
speech, like the limbs of animals, are furnished \v\\h joints. 
But, as there are no joints to sounds, articulation is cer- 
tainly a misnomer. Articulation does not divide a sound 
into parts, as joints divide a jinger into parts. Nor does 
articulation connect sounds, as joints connect the parts of a 
finger. Articulation is a modification of sounds, a changing 
of their forms, so to speak, and not a division of one sound 
into two, or more sounds. The idea that articulation divides 
a sound into parts is certainly a mistaken notion which is 
founded in an erroneous view of the nature of the process. 
Hence an attempt to illustrate the operation by comparing it 
to the action of joints in dividing a limb of an animal into 
parts, is calculated to produce darkness instead of light. 

The numerous applications which this word has received 
from the circumstance of its having been first used to denote 
the breaking of a continuous sound asunder, as the joints 
are supposed to break the limbs of an animal, are not sin- 
gular results. The word is now used to denote the act of 
speaking ; as, he articulated a number of sentences. And 
one is said to have a good articulation, a distinct articula- 
tion. That the word should have received these secondary 
applications is not strange. These spring quite naturally 
from the first. But the problem whose solution is so full 
of difficulties, is how the human mind came to apply this 
word to sounds in the first place. Articulation is made 
from articulus, a joint. This word has been introduced 
into the old system of grammar upon a supposed analogy 
between that state which is produced by the joints of a 
limb, and that condition which is produced by uttering a 



ARTICULATION. 35 

word. The condition produced by the joints must be that 
of separation, or connexion. Is it contended that joints 
separate an animal limb into distinct parts ? Be it so. But 
the process of articulation does not divide the sounds of a 
word, for they are never united in any stage of their forma- 
tion. The sounds which compose the word, 

In-com-pre-hen-si-hil-i-ty, 

are never continuous, solid, like a bar of iron. Each sound 
is formed as distinct as the apples of the same tree grow. 
The sounds of words are formed as distinct one from an- 
other as are hats, shoes, or chairs. But, after all, the joints 
do not separate the parts of the limb : they connect them. 
Hence, to make out the analogy, it should be shown that it 
is the province of articulation to connect the different sounds 
of a word ! And, should it be contended that articulation 
connects, what will become of a word which has but one 
solitary voice? For instance, the vocal word, represented 
by the letter, II And should it be maintained that articu- 
lation separates, what then becomes of I? The vocal 
word which /represents, is neither divided, nor connected! 
What ! Is it contended that there is a division in this indi- 
visible sound, resembling those made by the joints in a limb 
of an animal ? Is there any connexion in, or about this 
monothong, I, analogous to the connection produced by a 
joint between any two parts of a finger, or any other ani- 
mal limb ? 

Again : if articulation either divides, or connects sounds, 
what becomes of all words of but one syllable ? These are 
all monothongs ; they, therefore, can have nothing resem- 
bling division, nor any thing analogous to connection : 

in, on, up, to, but, here, strength, there, where, is, write, 
from, long, short, &c. &c. &c. 

But it is said by some that the word, articulation, is ap- 
plied to the process of forming the elements of vocal words, 
because in this process these elements are left in a conjunc- 
tive state. This idea is clearly expressed in the following 
paragraph taken from a popular English Grammar : 

" We may farther remark that sounds are called articu- 
late, from the Latin word, ariiculus, which signifies a joint, 
because they can be jointed, or joined together ; so that 
several shall form but one word." 



36 ARTICULATION. 

If this is true philosophy, all monosyllables are excluded 
from the idea of any articulation : a monosyllable has but 
one sound ; hence this articulate sound is not only not joined 
to another syllable, but is incapable of being joined to an- 
other. Instances — /, he, a, in, but, &c. With what other 
syllable is I joined? ! 

If I understand Dr. Webster upon this point, he is of 
opinion that the process of forming the elements of a vocal 
word, is called articulation, because these elements are 
formed by joining the vocal organs in their formation ! If 
this is sound philosophy, vocal music, as well as all sounds 
made by dumb beasts, is articulate sound ! 

Having made these few reflections upon the name, and 
upon the nature of the act of forming articulate sounds, I 
propose now to offer a substitute for the old name of the 
process of forming these elements of phonods, or vocal lan- 
guages. But, in order to understand this word which I am 
about to propose as a substitute for the usual name of the 
process of forming these rudiments of diction, of vocal 
words, it may be well to form an appropriate name for the 
rudiments themselves before I attempt to present the one 
which I have constructed for the name of the act of making 
them. These elements are the first principles, the rudi- 
ments of diction, of vocal language : hence I propose to call 
them, Rudictions. The word, rudiction, is derived from 
the Latin, rudimentum, rudiments, and dictio, diction, vo- 
cal speech, and signifies the elements, the rudiments of dic- 
tion, of vocal language. Every distinct sound in a phonepos, 
a vocal word, is a rudiction. In the phonepos, in-co?n- 
pre-hen-si-bil-i-ty , there are eight rudictions. That is, eight 
rudiments of diction. These rudictions are called by the 
old school grammarians, articulate sounds, (sounds which 
have \ joints ;) and the process of forming them, is called by 
the same class of scholars, articulation. But I propose to 
call these rudiments of diction, rudictions, and the process 
of forming them, rudication. The word, rudication, is 
formed from rudicate; and rudicate is constructed from 
rudiction, and ate. 

Rudiction signifies the rudiments of diction, of vocal 
speech; and ate means to make, to form. Hence to rudi- 
cate, is to make, to form, rudictions, 



SYLLABLE. 37 

RUDICATION. 

Rudication is the act, or process of forming rudictions. 

Ru-dic ' -a-tive sounds. 
Ru-dic' -a-tive sounds are those sounds which constitute 
the rudictions of a phonod, or vocal phrenod. 
Ru-dic 1 -a-tive organs. 
The Rudicative organs are those organs with which ru- 
dictions are formed from the air which passes from the 
lungs, through the mouth. 



CHAPTER VIII.— THE WORD, SYLLABLE. 

The word, syllable, is from the Greek sun, together, and 
lambano, to take. Hence the true import of the word, syl- 
lable, is to take together. But the obvious characteristic of 
a syllable is directly opposed to this manner of taking. For 
whatever articulate sound is distinct in itself, is a syllable ; 
as, a-bout. Now, if a conjunctive state of letters is the cha- 
racteristic of a syllable, the very principle which renders 
" bout" a syllable, prevents a from becoming a syllable ! 
Hu-man-i-ty. 

Here the mind considers hu by itself, alone, not in con- 
junction with man, i, or ty — the mind takes hu as the repre- 
sentative of a sound which is separate, distinct from every 
other sound in the vocal word, hu-man-i-ty. The fact that 
this representative, hu, has more than one letter, and that 
these letters are taken together, does not render this repre- 
sentative a syllable. Let it be said for the sake of the il- 
lustration, that, in one year from this time, one letter, new 
in its formation, is to be substituted for the two letters, h and 
u, in every instance where hu now constitutes a syllable — 
and will not this one character, this one letter be as much a 
syllable as hu ? What, then, is it which renders this gram- 
matic, this letter representative, a syllable 1 It is the fact 
that it stands alone in the frame- work of the word,hu-man- 
i-ty. 

Words are said, and with truth, to be divided into sylla- 
bles. But how does the idea of a division, a separation, 
comport with the Greek word, sun? " Sun," together, and 
lambano, to take. To take together. That is, to take to- 
gether by separating ! ! 

5 



38 SYLLABLE. 

The word, syllable, would be a very proper name for all 
words which are composed of two, or more syllables. For, 
although we always divide, or separate in order to make 
syllables ; yet in all cases except in monosyllables, we com- 
bine, take together in order to form words. Thus the fol- _ 
lowing syllables, hu, man, i, iy, when taken together form 
the word humanity. The word, syllable, seems to be a very 
appropriate name for this word. " Humanity" is a syllable, 
because in forming the word, separate, distinct, entire parts 
are taken together. 

The word, " ba-ker," is a syllable, because in its forma- 
tion there are distinct, whole parts which are taken together. 
The word, in, however, cannot be denominated a syllable, 
because there are not in this word, distinct, entire, whole, 
separate sounds. Hence it is impossible that the idea of 
taking together should enter into the forming of this word. 
The i is the representative of the only distinct sound in the 
word. The n does not represent any sound which can be 
taken alone, separately, (i) (n.) True, the letter, n, may be 
uttered — not alone, however, but with the sound of the vowel 
e ; as, n. That is, en. Should it be said that in order to 
form the word, in, two letters are taken together, and that, 
therefore, the idea of taking together, actually enters into 
the process of forming this word, it is replied, first, that 
these two letters, i and n, can not form a word unless they 
are considered as the representative of articulate sound, 
and, that as such they are not distinct one from the other, 
for there are not two distinct sounds in the vocal word 
which these printed characters are designed to represent. It is 
replied, secondly, that these characters, i and n, cease to be 
letters the moment they are considered apart from, and in- 
dependent of, articulate sound — a letter is the representative 
of articulate sound. Hence, if i and n are put together in- 
dependent of the articulate sound in the vocal word, they do 
not even in this conjunctive state form any word watever. 
The word character of i and n in their combined state, is 
derived from the articulate word which they represent. 
Hence, as soon as these, or any other letters, are deprived 
of their representative relation to vocal words, they lose the 
letter character, and with it the ability to form words ! To 
render i and n two distinct things, they must be considered 
apart from articulate sound — and, as such a manner of 
taking them deprives them of their letter character 9 they do 



SYLLABLE. 39 

not constitute a word even when taken together as two dis- 
tinct things ! As a letter, n is not a distinct character, for 
it is not the representative of a distinct sound in a vocal 
word. The point is, not what is n in, and of itself, but what 
is it as the representative of articulate sound. It is depend- 
ent, not distinct — it is a consonant — a letter which cannot 
be uttered without the aid of a vowel sound, or a vowel let- 
ter. The word, in, then, can not properly be denominated 
a syllable upon the principle that there is a taking of dis- 
tinct parts together in its formation. As the idea of a syl- 
lable is separation rather than conjunction, would not the 
prefix, dis, answer the purpose of the British grammarians 
better than sun ? Dissyllable seems quite significant of the 
disjunctive state of the following distinct parts of the word, 
hu-man-i-ty . 

Is it said that the conjunctive manner of taking is found 
in the way in which the letters are taken, and, that as h 
and u are taken together in forming a syllable, the manner, 
denoted by sun, is actually found in the mode in which h 
and u are taken in the formation of the monogram, hu ? Ah ! 
And what parts are taken together in the syllable which 
the solitary letter, i, constitutes ? hu-man-i-ty ! 

The monograms in italic in the following words, furnish 
instances which can hardly be brought under the true im- 
port of the word, syllable : 

Eb-o-ny, am-bi-gu-i-ty, cu-ri-os-i-ty, a-bom-z-na-tion, 
a-gain, a-lone, a-long, a-bove, a-bout, a-side, e-met-ic, e-nig- 
mat-ic-al, e-volve, e-mit, w-nite, w-nion, e-vade, a-vail, a-loof, 
flu-id-i-ty, po-ros-i-ty, ci-vil-i-ty, lon-gev-i-ty, su-i-cide, 
o-mit-ted, &c. &c. &c. 

In the above words, there are twenty-six syllables which 
are composed of but one letter each ! They are o, i, i, a, 
i 9 a, a, a, a, a, a, e, e, e, e, u, u, e, a, a, i, i, i, i, i, o. 

Now, if the characteristic property of a syllable is a 
conjunctive state, how is it possible that the above single 
letters, individually taken, can constitute even one syllable ? 
How is it possible for the letter, I, to constitute a syllable in 
the following instance : "/am what I am ?" 

In a compilation on Grammar, by Goold Brown, a sylla- 
ble is defined as follows : "A syllable is one, or more letters 
pronounced in one sound : 

In a compilation by Samuel Kirkham, a syllable is 
defined to be a distinct sound :" 



40 SYLLABLE. 

"A syllable is a distinct sound uttered by a single 
impulse of the voice." 

In a work compiled by William Lennie, a syllable is de- 
fined to be a distinct part of a word : 

"A syllable is a part of a word, or as much as can be 
sounded at once : 

In a work compiled by John Newbery, a syllable is de- 
fined to be a distinct sound : 

"A syllable is a complete sound uttered in one breath ; 
as, a, in a-lone." 

In Todd's Walker, a syllable is defined to be, " one ar- 
ticulation." 

In several other standard works of this kind, a syllable 
is defined to be "A sound pronounced by a single impulse 
of the voice." 

Now, from all these definitions, is it not obvious that the 
distinguishing idea of a syllable as existing in the mind, is 
that it is one sound, and not two or more, that this one 
sound is considered alone, and not with another ? Is it not 
obvious also from these definitions, that a syllable is spoken 
of in relation to vocal words only? Would a group of 
letters put together without any regard to sound or voice, 
be denominated a syllable ? For instance, are the following 
assemblages of letters syllables : xgq, zwt,fgl, ssss ? 

Are these groups of letters syllables ? Surely not — they 
are not syllables, because they do not represent any distinct 
sound which can be taken alone, which can stand by itself. 
Yet the letter, I, is a syllable ; the letter, a, is a syllable ; 
the letter, o, is a syllable. And how is it that / is a syllable ? 
Is /a syllable because it is taken together? (Sim and lam- 
bano !) 

I is a syllable because it represents a distinct sound — an 
articulate sound which can be considered by itself; an ar- 
ticulate sound which the mind can take alone, which the 
mind can consider without connecting it with another sound. 
/ is a syllable because it is a representative of one whole 
distinct sound. But, if the idea of a syllable is that which 
is expressed by the word, syllable, as derived from sun and 
lambano, it is that of taking two or more distinct sounds 
together ! " Sun, together, and lambano, to take." 

Let us now read the above quoted definitions of a sylla- 
ble agreeably to the true import of the word, syllable : 



SYLLABLE. 41 

"A syllable is one or more letters pronouced in one 
sound" which is taken together ! 

That is, this one sound must be taken together ! " No ! 
no ! the letters must be taken together." Indeed, the sound, 
then, is not a syllable ! " Certainly it is." But if the sound 
can not be taken together, how can it be a syllable? Again : 
are the letters which can be " pronounced in one sound" a 
syllable because they are taken together — or because they 
are the representative of one distinct articulate sound? 
The letters are denominated a syllable merely because 
they represent a vocal syllable. And does any vocal sylla- 
ble comprise more than one distinct sound ? Again : that 
unity, and not plurality, is the leading, the specific charac- 
ter of a syllable, is proved from the fact that one letter is 
as much a syllable, if it is the complete representative of a 
distinct sound, as two, three, or more. Hence i is as much 
a syllable as ci. And ci is as much a syllable as cir. 
Why ? Because the i alone represents a sound which can 
be taken alone, which can stand without mixing with 
another sound. And i with c does not represent two sounds 
which can stand alone, for c does not express a sound 
which can stand alone, which can be taken from the sound 
represented by i, and placed by itself as a distinct articu- 
late sound. Nor does c enable i to represent two distinct 
sounds. The letter c does not denote a distinct sound, but 
a mere hiss ; and this hiss mixes with the full open vocal 
sound which i represents, and qualifies it, turns it into 
ci — i, ci. Can you take away the qualifying hiss denoted 
by c ? place it alone, and view it by itself. You can not — 
c denotes no distinct sound — c at most is the representative 
of the mere colour of another sound — ci. 

Cir. Now, as c, merely qualifies the distinct syllabic 
" sound represented by i, so does r qualify the distinct quali- 
fied sound, denoted by ci. Hence i is changed to ci, and 
ci to cir. But still there is but one distinct sound, and that 
one is that which i alone represents. /, ci, and cir are the 
same piece of cloth having a different shade of colour in 
each exhibition. In the first, it has its natural shade; in 
the second, it has that which c gives it ; and, in the third, 
it has that which r produces. 

" A syllable is one, or more letters pronounced in one 
sound" 

5* 



42 SYLLABLE. 

A syllable is one letter pronounced in one sound, which 
letter is taken together ! ! 

A syllable is a distinct sound uttered by a single impulse 
of the voice, which, of course, is taken together ! ! 

A syllable is a distinct sound which, of course, must be 
taken together ! ! 

Todd defines a syllable as follows, 

" A syllable is one articulation." 

And can it be that Mr. Todd intended to define a syllable 
in accordance with the general import of the word, syllable, 
as derived from sun, and lambano ? 

1. Syllables may be composed of sounds; and they may 
be composed of letters. 

2. A syllable composed of sound, is properly called a 
Monothong ; and one composed of letters, is properly de- 
nominated a Monogram. 

3. "Monothong" a sound which can be taken alone; 
as, I, in-hu-man. 

4. " Monogram," as many letters as can be taken alone ; 
as, in-con-gru-i-ty. 

" Monos," alone, and " Gramma," a letter. 

5. " Monoalpha" is from monos, one ; and alpha, a let- 
ter, and means a Monogram, composed of one letter ; as, i 
in hu-man-z-ty. * 

6. " Dialpha" is from dis, two, and alpha, a letter, and 
means a Monogram, composed of two letters ; as, hu, and 
ty, in Aw-man-i-^z/. 

7. " Trialpha" is from treis, three, and alpha, a letter, 
and means a Monogram, composed of three letters ; as, 
man, in the word, hu-man-i-ty. 

8. Polyalpha" is from polus, many, and alpha, a letter, 
and means a Monogram, composed of four, or more letters ; 
as, gram, in gram-msx, — and as, strength, in 
strength. 

9. " Bivowel" is from binus, double, two, and vowel, a 
letter representing a distinct sound, and means the union or 
conjunction of two vowels in one Monogram ; as, ou in 
sozmd. 

10. " Trivowel" is from treis, three, and vowel, and 
means the coalition or junction of three vowels in one Mono- 
gram ; as, u a i, in acquaint. 

11. " Monothong" is from monos, one, and phthongos, a 
sound, and means one distinct sound in vocal speech. 



SYLLABLE. 43 

Hence in the vocal word, hu-man-i-ty, there are four mono- 
thongs. 

What a Monogram is in a printed word, a Monothong is 
in a vocal word. Hence it may be said that a Monogram 
is the representative of a Monothong ; as, hn-man-i-ty. 

In this printed word there are four monograms, and each 
monogram represents its own monothong in the vocal 
word. 

"Monothong" may be applied as the name of all vocal 
words which have but one distinct sound. Hence the vocal 
word which is represented by one monogram, may be de- 
nominated a Monothong ; as, in, at, but, strength. 

And the printed word which represents a Monothong, 
may be denominated a Monogram ; as, in, at, but, strength. 

12. "Diphthong" is from dis, two, and phthongos, a 
sound, and means a word, composed, not of two monograms, 
but of two monothongs, as is seen in the vocal word, un-der. 

13. " Triphthong" is from treis, three, and phthongos, 
a sound, and means a word, composed of three monothongs^ 
as is seen in the vocal word, gen-er-al. 

14. " Poly thong" is from polus, many, arid phthongos, a 
sound, and means a word which is composed of many mo- 
nothongs, as is seen in the vocal word, in-com-pre-hen-si- 
bil-i-ty. 

Four monothongs are considered many — hence, if a 
phonepos is composed of four monothongs, it is called a poly- 
thong, as is seen in the word, gen-er-al-ly. 

15. " Monogram" is from monos, one, and gramma, & 
letter, or a group of lettters, and means in this, its second 
application in this system, a printed word, composed of one 
letter, or of one group of letters ; as, " 2, am, that, I, am. 

Here, each letter word is a monogram — and each ^ocal 
word which each monogrammic one represents, is a mono- 
thong. 

16. " Amphogram" is from ampho, two, and "gramma," 
a letter, or an assemblage of letters, and means a word, 
composed of two monograms ; as, in-duce, a-gainst, o-pake. 

17. " Triegram" is from treis, three, and gramma, a 
letter, or a distinct assemblage of letters, and means a word 
composed of three monograms ; as, gen-e-ral, eb-o-ny. 

18. "Polygram" is from polus, many, and gramma, a 
letter, or a distinct assemblage of letters, and means a word, 



44 SYLLABLE. 

composed of many monograms ; as, gen~e-ral-ly, in-com« 
pre-hen-si-bil-i-ty. 

Four monograms are considered many. 

i In offering the preceding reflections upon the subject 
of articulation, and syllables, I have not been actuated by 
any desire to discard at once the old words, articulation, 
and syllable. I am inclined to the opinion that an imme- 
diate rejection of these technicals from their accustomed 
sphere of action in the expression of thought, would be 
attended with considerable inconvenience to the learned 
world. My view of the subject is that, if the substitutes 
which I have provided, are better than the old ones of 
which I have complained in the seventh, and the eighth 
chapter, they may be used in connection with the old till 
the world shall have become familiar with them, and then 
take the place of which the old ones now have the sole 
occupancy. 

Should the friends of these old terms feel a reluctance to 
give them a final discharge from all duties in the service 
of speech, let them be gratified by their retention : the re- 
tention of these venerated servants in technology, can form 
no excuse for a ?io?z-reception of younger ones. Duplication 
in technicals, is not without advantage. So far from finding 
two technical names for one thing, or principle in science, 
a deformity, and an inconvenience either in theory, or 
practice, the world has generally favoured technical dupli- 
cation as a beauty, and an excellence. Two technicals 
for one thing may be used with as much advantage as can 
the noun, and pronoun. For, as the pronoun relieves 
the noun for which it stands, one technical in science may 
prevent the two frequent repetition of another. 

CHAPTER IX.— ORTHOGRAPHY, 

" Okthography," says Murray, "teaches the nature, 
and power of letters, and the just method of spelling words." 
The word, orthography, is made from the Greek, orthos, 
right, and grapho, to write, and means to write rightly, 
or to write accurately. This word does not mean to write 
words any more than it signifies to write sentences, or 
hooks. The elements, orthos and grapho, convey no allu- 
sion whatever to the nature, and power of letters : nor do 
these elements allude to the method of forming letters into 
words any more than they allude to the method of forming 



ORTHOGRAPHY 45 

words into sentences, and sentences into paragraphs j para- 
graphs into chapters, and chapters into books! Is it not 
strange that the word, grammar, has been applied, up to the 
present time, to all the constructive principles of language, 
for no better reason than that of its being, in its Greek cos- 
tume, a sign of a mere elementary part of a printed word, 
while the word, orthography, which is so general in its de- 
rivative import, that it must extend to all constructive prin- 
ciples of letter language, is brought down to the mere forma- 
tion of words ? 

(See page .) 

" The nature, and powers of letters." 

But, before we give our attention to the nature, and 
powers of letters, let us hear from Mr. Murray, and others, 
what a letter is. 

1. "A letter is the first principle, or the least part of a 
word." — Murray. 

2. " Letters are marks, or signs of significant sounds." — 
Pierce. 

3. " A letter is a character used in printing, or writing, 
to represent an articulate sound." — G. Brown. 

" The letters in the English Language, called the Eng- 
lish Alphabet, are twenty-six in number. These letters are 
the representatives of certain articulate sounds, the elements 
of the language." — Murray. 

Letters are divided by the old school grammarians into 
vowels, and consonants. Some of the consonants are called 
mutes, others semi-vowels, and others liquids. 

1. " A vowel," say Murray, and others," is an articulate 
sound which can be perfectly uttered by itself; as, a, e, o. 

2. A consonant is an articulate sound which can not be 
perfectly uttered without the help of a vowel ; as, b, d,f, I. 

In the first place we are told that there are, in the English 
alphabet, twenty-six letters. In the next, we are told that 
these letters are the least parts of words, and that they are 
the representatives of articulate sounds : after this, we are 
informed that these twenty -six letters are divided into vowels, 
and consonants. 

The unsoundness of this classification is obvious from the 
following considerations : 

A vowel is a voice; and a voice is an articulate sound ; 
and every letter in the English alphabet is the representa- 



46 ORTHOGRAPHY. 

five of an articulate sound! It follows, then, that every 
letter in the English alphabet is a vowel! Hear Mr. 
Murray : 

" The letters in the English language, called the English 
Alphabet, are twenty-six in number. These letters are the 
representatives of certain articulate sounds, the elements 
of the language." 

If articulate sounds are voices, and if all letters represent 
articulate sounds, are not all letters vowels ? The word, 
vowel, is derived from the Latin, vocalis, a voice, an arti- 
culate sound. There is nothing in the word, vowel, which 
can be urged in justification of its restriction to the follow- 
letters : a, e, i, o, it, w, y. True, these letters represent 
peculiar voices, and should have a peculiar name. But is 
that peculiar name to be found in the word, vowel? The 
distinctive character of the word, vowel, is that significant 
capacity by which it can be applied to all articulate voices, 
or to all letters representing articulate voices. 

" A vowel," say the authors of our old English gram- 
mar, "is a letter which forms a perfect sound when uttered 
alone." — G. Brown. 

As these letters, a, e, i, o, u, w, and y, are distinguished 
from all other letters by their capacity to be uttered alone, 
their true name is Solo-vowels. [Solas, alone.) 

Consonants. 

A consonant is a letter which cannot be perfectly uttered 
till joined to a vowel. The word, consonant, is made from 
con, with, and sono, to sound. But why have the old- 
school grammarians rejected the word, vocalis, a voice, for 
the word, sono, to sound ? Why have they not retained 
the word, vowel, as the common base of the two technical 
names of the two grand divisions of the English alphabet ? 
Had they done this, both facts, or circumstances which 
render a division necessary, and which indeed have been 
made the ground-work of the division, could have been dis- 
tinctly expressed. Let us start, then, with the fact that all 
letters are vowels — the representatives of rudicative sounds, 
articulate sounds. Some of these vowels can be uttered 
alone: hence they are Solo-vowe\s. (Solus, alone.) The 
others can not be uttered without being connected with the 
Solo-vowels : hence these are Colo-vowels. (Col, from con, 
connected with.) 



ORTHOGRAPHY. 47 

But I am not satisfied with the doctrine of this division. 
I believe that every letter in the English alphabet, can be 
fully uttered by itself! Instead, therefore, of dividing the 
letters of our alphabet in reference to the two circumstances 
mentioned above, I would name each letter according to the 
character of the voice which it represents. Upon this prin- 
ciple the letters of our alphabet may be divided into three 
classes, and may be called, Hyper grams, Hupograms, and 
Sithy grams. 

1. A hypergram is a letter which represents a hyper- 
phony, a free-flowing, unstifled voice, or rudiction ; as, a, o. 
(Hyper, free, and gramma, a letter.) 

2. A hupogram is a letter which represents a stifled voice, 
or rudiction ; as b, m, z. (Hupo, stifled, and gramma, a 
letter.) 

3. A sithygram is a letter which represents a voice, or 
rudiction that can be uttered in a whisper only ; as, h, s,p,f 
(Psi-thuros, contracted to sithy, a whisper, and gramma, 
a letter.) 

But before you can have a clear view of this remedial 
classification, and designation of the letters in our alphabet, 
you must give some attention to that part of English Syn- 
tax, which the new system calls Phonology, the first part 
of Poeology, which is presented as a substitute for Ortho- 
graphy as found in the old system. 

Poeology, 
Is that part of Syntax, which teaches the principles of 
forming words. 

Note. — Poeology is compounded of two Greek words ; namely, 
poieo, to make, and logos, a word, and means the principle, or process 
of word-making in general. 

Poeology is divided into two parts : Phonology and 
Alphaology. 

Note. — Phonology is formed from two Greek words; namely, phone, 
a sound, and logos, a word, and means the principles, or process of vocal 
word-making, or the principles, or process of making sounds into w r ords. 

Alphaology is made from the Greek, alpha, a letter, and logos, a 
a word, and means the principles of forming letters into words. 

1. Phonology is that part of Poeology, which teaches 
the principles of forming words from sounds. 

2. Alphaology is that part of Poeology, which teaches 
the principles of forming words from letters. 



48 j ORTHOGRAPHY. 

\ > 

w Part I. Phonology. 

1. Phonology is that part of Poeology, which teaches 
the principles of forming words from sounds, or rudictions. 

There are about forty rud\ctions, or rudimental voices, 
and these are divided into three classes, namely, 

1. Hyper phonies, 

2. Hupophonies, and 

3. Sithyphonies. 

1. Hy-per-pho-ny is compounded of two Greek words : 
namely, huper, above, and phone, a voice, a sound. 

Whatever is in the condition denoted by huper, must be 
free, unstified, unchecked: hence huper may, upon the 
principle of metonymy, be made to mean, free, unstified, 
unrestrained, unchecked. The word, hyper, then, as de- 
rived from huper, is, in this work, synonymoXis with free, 
and unstified. 

" Phony" is made from the Greek, phone, a voice, a 
sound. The word, hyperphony, then, signifies a free, un- 
stified voice, or sound. 

1. Hyper, » free, unstified. 

2. Phony, a voice, a sound. 

2. Hu-poph'O-ny is Greek, and is derived from hupo, un- 
der, and phone, a voice, a sound. 

Note. The u is retained to render the distinction between hyper- 
phony, and hupophony, more striking in utterance. 

Whatever is in the condition denoted by hupo, must have 
some restraint, check, encumbrance, stifling, or deficiency : 
hence hupo may, upon the principle of metonymy, be made 
to signify restraint, check, deficiency, or stifled state. Hence 
the word, hupophony, means a stifled voice, or sound. 
Hupo, under, (some restraint,) and phone, a voice. That 
is, not a voice which flows from the lungs through the 
glottis, and mouth, without being stifled by the action of the 
tongue, teeth, lips, or some other hupophonating organ, but 
one which is under the restaint, under the stifling action 
of some one, or more of the perphonating organs. 

1 . Hupo, stifled, restrained, modified. 

2. Phony,' a voice, a sound. 

3. Sith-y-pho-ny is of Greek elements ; psi-thu-ros, a 
mere whisper, and phone, a voice, or sound, and means a 



ORTHOGRAPHY. I j 49 

whispered voice, or sound ; or rather, a sourid which can 
not be uttered in a louder tone than a mere ufhisper. 

The rudictions of speech, then, may be divided into three 
orders, namely, Hyperphonic, Hupophonic^ and Sithy- 
phonic. 

1. The huperphonic order of rudictions is composed of 
fourteen, or fifteen free-floiving, unstifled voices. 

The hyperphonies are formed by a continued effusion of 
air from the lungs, which passes through the mouth with- 
out any restraint, or stifling from any organs employed in 
speech. These voices are formed by the collective agency 
of the lungs, the larynx, the glottis, the cavity which is 
often called the mouth, and by the real mouth, the aperture 
formed by the lips. These different instruments, or means 
employed in this process, are denominated, the hyper- 
phonic organs. And the voices produced by their use, may 
well be denominated Hyper. They are hyper voices in 
the original sense of hyper, as well as in its derived sense, 
explained in a preceding page. They are hyper — first, 
because they are above the reach of restraint in the process 
of their formation : secondly, they are hyper, because they 
are above the reach of defect, or deficiency, when formed : 
the ear which recalls them for examination, must pronounce 
them fully developed: and, thirdly, they are hyper voices, 
because they are the basis in all systems of phonics ; hence 
they are above all other sounds in constructive rank. 

2. The Hupophonic order is composed of fourteen, or 
fifteen stifled voices. The instruments or means employed 
in their formation, are the tongue, the teeth, nose, lips, Sic. 
These instruments which seem to form a class of voices 
that modify the hypherphonies by mixing with them, are 
denominated, The Hupophonic organs. The action of 
these organs upon the air, from whose vibration they pro- 
duce voice, is complex, mysterious, wonderful. The great 
outlines of their movements, however, may be denominated 
contact, compression, interception, and separation, or 
opening. In this way they form sounds, even in the shell 
of the mouth, which, to a greater or less extent, unite with 
the hyperphonies that come rushing through the glottis from 
the lungs into the mouth, where a sort of symphysis takes 
place, which produces an obvious modification in these pul- 
monary voices. 



50 



ORTHOGRAPHY. 



3. The Sithyphonic order is made up of nine, or ten 
voices, which can not be uttered in a higher tone than a 
mere whisper. 

Part II. Alphaology. 
Jilphaology is that part of Poeology, which teaches the 
principles of forming words from letters. 
letters, 
Are the elements of the alphepoi, and the representatives 
of the elements of the phonepoi. 

Phoriepoi, the plural of phonepos. Alphapoi, the plural ofalphepos. 

The English alphabet contains twenty-six letters. These, 
Jllphaology divides according to the character of the sounds, 
the rudictions, which they represent, into three classes, 
namely, Hyper gi°ams, Hupograms, and Sithy grams. 

1. A hypergram is a letter which represents a hyper- 
phony, a free flowing, unstifled voice, or rudiction; as, a, o. 
(Hyper, free, and gramma, a letter.) 

2. A hnpogram is a letter which represents a stifled voice, 
or rudiction ; as, b, m, z. (Hupo, stifled, and gramma, 
a letter.) 

3. A sithygram is a letter which represents a voice, or 
rudiction that can be uttered in a whisper only ; as h, s, p,f. 
(Psi-thu-ros, contracted to sithy, a whisper, and gramma, 
a letter.) 

HYPERGRAMS. HUPOGRAMS. SITHYGRAMS. 



B Q 

mm 

MZ 



1. The hyper grams are a, e, i, o, u, and y. 

Note. Y is not a hypergram where it precedes another hyper ; as 
yet, yard. 

2. The hupograms are b, d, g,j, I, m, n, r, v, w, y, z. 
Note. Y is a hupogram, only where it falls before a hyper ; as, yes. 



ORTHOGRAPHY. 51 

3. The sithy grams are, c,/, h, Jc, p, q, s, t, x. 

DlSPERGRAMS, AND TRISPERGRAMS. 

1. A dispergram is the union of two hyper grams, in one 
monogram ; as, oi in voice. (Dis, two.) 

2. A trispergram is the union of three hyper grams in 
one monogram; as, lew in view. (Tris, three.) 

In the preceding chapters I have attempted a brief exposition of those 
improprieties, in the use of a few of the technical terms which are 
used in the inceptive stage of the old system of English Grammar. 
And I have also undertaken to make an exposition of some of the 
errors which pervade, and deform the definitions given in that part of 
the old system in which these technicals are improperly employed. 
But I have not been willing to leave this subject in this condition : I 
have undertaken to furnish remedial terms, and remedial definitions — 
and — should the world think proper to apply them for the cure of those 
diseased ones which I have shown to be too feeble to bear their own 
weight, it is hoped that the cause of truth will have no reason to com- 
plain, and that the youth of our country will have much reason to 
rejoice. 

It may be of some use to make a practical application of 
the above names : this I will do in an attempt to mention, 
and illustrate the different sounds which each hypergram 
represents. In the first place, then, it may not be contrary 
to method to remark that each hypergram has two opponent 
sounds, or rudictipns, viz. : a long one and a short one. 
Line A is the long sound, or rudiction of which every hy- 
pergram is the representative ; and line B is the short sound, 
or rudiction of which every hypergram is also the repre- 
sentative. 

1 A a> e * *' °' — 
B _a,e,i,o,u. 



Verbal illustration of the two opponent sounds of each 
merscram. 



hypergram. 

fmad 

| met 

Short<^ bit 



f: 



"a made 

a e - - - mete 

Long<^ i bite 

\ o - - - rode 
\ju - - " tube 



rod 
tub 



The opponent rudictions which each hypergram repre- 
sents in its variety of application in forming alphapoi. are 



52 



ORTHOGRAPHY. 



modified in such degrees, and ways as are indicated by the 
following epeconical sounds, or epeconical rudictions." 

A. 



I. 



O. 




U. 




01. 




ORTHOGRAPHY. 53 

EXEMPLIFICATION, AND RULES. 
A has 
1. A long slender sound, as heard in fate. 



2. A shortish flat sound, as heard in far. 

3. A shortish broad sound, as heard in fall. 

4. A short flat sound, as heard in fat. 



5. A short broad sound, as heard in wad. 



1. A is long in all words of one monogram, which end 
with e ; as, late, fate, date. 

2. A is generally long when it ends a monogram in 
words composed of two, or more monagrams ; as, pa-per, 
vexa-tion, crea-tion, emancipa-tion. 

3. A is generally long in the last monogram of a word, 
which ends with e ; as, emancipate, create, debate, inflate. 

4. A is short in all words of one monogram, which end 
with a single hupogram, or sithygram ; as, pad, wad, lad. 

5. A is short in all words where it falls before a doubled 
hupogram, or sithygram ; as, matter, latter, ladder, add. 

6. A is short in instances where a hupogram, or sithy- 
gram in the middle of a word, may easily be pronounced as 
though it is doubled ; as, banishment, dragon, value. 
(Bannishment, dragoon, vaZ/ue.) 

E has 
1. A long sound, as heard in me. 



2. A short sound, as heard in met. 



1. E is long before a hupogram, or sithygram which is 
followed by another e in the same monogram : or, E is long 
where it has the sound of ee ; as, create, precede, austere, 
supercede, sphere. (Creeate, preceed, austeer, supersede!, 
spheer.) 

2. E is long at the end of words where it is not silent, 

6* 



54 ORTHOGRAPHY. 

or where it is not nearly so : or, E is long at the end of 
words where ee can be substituted for e without changing 
the sound ; as, be, donee, Phoe-be, Penelope, epitome, 
simile, we, she, thee, the. (Bee, epitomee, similee, &c.) 

3. E is short in all words, and in all monograms, which 
terminate with a hupogram, or sithygram ; as, fed, men, 
bed, held, well, elm, help, jerk, dress, tanner, manner, 
matter, hatter, tvritten, loved. 

4. E is short in all words in which the hupogram, or 
sithygram in the middle of the word, is doubled ; as, mel- 
loiv, ivedding, bedding, getting, referring, spelling. 

I has 

1. A long sound, as heard in pine. 

2. A short sound, as heard in pin. 



1. /is long where silent e terminates the monogram ; as, 
mine, ride, wine, dine. 

2. I is long before gh, ght, gn, mb, Id, and nd, when 
these are uttered in the same monogram with i ; as, high, 
height, sign, climb, child, find, wind. (Exceptions: limb, 
guild, build, wind.) 

3. / is short in words of one monogram where but one 
hupogram, or sithygram, follows it ; as, pin, sin, lid, wit, 
pit, rib, fib. 

4. I is short where the hupogram, or sithygram in the 
middle of a word, is doubled ; as, omitted, fitted, bitter, 
giddy. 

5. / is sometimes short in words of one monogram, 
where the last two letters are hypograms, or sithy grams ; 
as, sift, gilt, built, mint, mill, hilt, spilt, gills, jilt, 
wind, (i. e. air.) (Exception: pint.) 

6. / is short where it has much the sound of short u ; 
as, third, bird, dirt . (Bwrd, thwrd, dwrt.) 

O has 

1. A long open sound, as heard in no 

2. A shortish close sound, as heard in move. 



3. A shortish broad sound, as heard in nor. 



ORTHOGRAPHY. 55 

4. A short broad sound, as heard in not. 

5, A short close sound, as heard in wolf. 



1. O is long where it ends a monogram, and also where 
the monogram ends with silent e ; as, so,mo-roc-co, ampho- 
gram, mono-dy, mo-nop-o-lize, hope, home, restore, deplore, 
mo-nop-tote, implore. (Exceptions: dove, love, move, im- 
prove, involve, revolve, resolve, dissolve.) 

2. O is long before //, Id, It, and 1st j as, roll, sold, bolt, 
bolster. 

3. O is long in many instances where it precedes r, where 
r is followed by a hupogram, or sithygram ; as, fort, port, 
sword, afford. 

4. O is sometimes long before st, and w ; as, most, host, 
post, blow, snow, know, row, crow, slow. (Exceptions : 
vow, now, how, lost, &c.) 

5. O is short when it falls before a hupogram, or sithy- 
gram which ends a monogram; as, com-mon.fog, odd, rob, 
rob-ber, nov-ice. (Exceptions : sol-dier, bolster.) 

6. O is often short before /, and v ; as, involve, resolve, 
revolve, dissolve, dove, love, improve, remove. 

7. O is short in the few words where it has the sound 
of ou, of short i, of oo, and of u; as, broth, cross, women, 
tomb, Borne, colour, wisdom, some, fathom, done, son, 
love, world, brother, mother, other, nothing, iron, environ, 
citron, saffron. 

8. O is short before n at the close of a word, where it 
loses nearly all sound; as, button, mutton, cotton. 

9. O is commonly short before ugh; as, rough, tough, 
enough, wrought, thought, ought, bought, brought, 
through. 

10. O is generally short where it precedes r, where r is 
followed by a hupogram, or a sithygram; as, sort, retort, 
detort, distort, distortion, abortion, deform, deformity, in- 
form, information, conform, conformity, conformation, 
suborn, subornation, transform, transformation, uniform, 
uniformity, multiform. 

U has 
1 . A long sound, as heard in tube. 





i ! 

56 j ORTHOGRAPHY. 

2. A short soupd, as heard in 

3. A short obtuse sound, as heard in 



4. A shortish obtuse sound, as heard in rule. 

01. 

O in oi, has its third sound, as heard in 

J in oi, has its second sound, as heard in 

OU. 

O in ou, has its third sound, as heard in found. 

U in ou, has its third sound, as heard in found. 



Technicals. 

OLD. NEW. 

Language « Phren-od. 

Philology Phren-ody . 

Printed language Alphod. 

Oral language Pho-nod. 

Printed word • Alphepos. 

Oral word Pho-ne-pos. 

Grammar • Syntax. 

Articulate » Kudicate. 

Articulation • • • • • Rudication. 

Articulate sounds Rudictions. 

Orthography • • -Po-e-ol-o-gy. 

Alphaology. 

Phonology. 

Alphabet Alphabet. 

Letters • • • • • Letters. 

Vowels •••• • Hypergrams. 

Consonants Hupograms. 

Sithy grams. 



i I 

ETYMOLOGY. 57 

Semivowels C These subdivisions are considered so 

Liquids • -^ destitute of utility that no equiva- 

Mutes » • • • • L -tent terms have been provided. 

Diphthongs Dispergram's. 

Triphthongs • Trispergrams. 

Svllable $ gen er al " " 5 Mono § ram - 

Syllable £ ^ _ __ ^ ^ j Monothong. 

M syllable $ * n $ Monogram. 

J ( ■ £ Monothong. 

Dissyllable j i y to ' j ^^^ aa ' 

Trissyllable \ 8 en er al " " 5 ShS"" 1 '- 

' { bhh am ■■■ £ Iriphthong. 

P svllable $ * mn 5W ^ stan ^ a ^ 0/l 5 Polygram. 

^ ^ g^l — Eai^i— B.LH. — lESEBi ) Polythong. 



Chapter X. Etymology. 

I shall introduce the subject of Etymology, by citing a 
few of the many definitions which different writers have 
given of this part of the old system of English Grammar. 

1. " The second part of grammar is Etymology, which 
treats of the different sorts of words, their various modifica- 
tions, and their derivations." Murray. 

2. " Etymology treats of the derivation of words from 
their radicals, or primitives, and of their various inflections, 
or modifications to express number, person, case, sex, time, 
and mode." Webster. 

3. " Etymology treats of the different parts of speech, 
and their classes, and their modifications." G. Brown. 

4. "The second part of grammar is Etymology, which 
treats of the different sorts of words, or parts of speech, 
and their variations." John Comly. 

5. " Etymology teaches how to form all the words in the 
English language, into several grand divisions, or sorts, 
commonly called parts of speech. 

" It includes a knowledge of the meaning and use of 
words : also their different changes and derivations. 

" Etymology signifies the origin, ox pedigree of words," 
Smith. 



58 ETYMOLOGY. 

Before I consider the word, etymology, it may be well 
enough to make a few remarks upon the apparent want of 
harmony in sentiments, or doctrines presented in the above 
definitions. Mr. Murray says that the second part of gram- 
mar is etymology, and that it treats of the different sorts of 
words, their various modifications, and their derivations. 
Mr. Webster, however, rejects the main doctrine in this 
definition, for he confines etymology to the derivation of 
words from their radicals, and to their various inflections to 
make a distinction in number, case, person, sex, time, and 
mode. But Goold Brown, not only makes etymolog3 r 
divide words into parts of speech, but he makes it divide 
the parts of speech into classes. Mr. Smith, however, af- 
firms that etymology divides the words of the English lan- 
guage into several grand divisions, or sorts only. Hence 
according to this author, the distinction of transitive, and 
intransitive, passive, and neuter, regular, and irregular, 
proper, and common, &c. &c, does not fall under etymo- 
logy. To this he adds, " It includes a knowledge of the 
meaning, and use of words !" So far as utility is con- 
cerned, Smithes definition is a dead letter. The first part 
struggles out of existence from starvation, the second from 
strangulation. The first part sips — it takes in a mere 
item of etymology ; but the second attempts to swallow 
down the entire science of language ! " English Gram- 
mar," says this author, " teaches us to speak, and write 
the English Language correctly." 

1. Etymology includes a knowledge of the meaning and 
use of words ! 

2. English Grammar teaches us the meaning, and use 
of words ! 

"What is the difference -between these two definitions ? 
Let him that can tell the difference between two errors on 
the same subject, give the answer ! Or what is the dif- 
ference between Smith's definition of etymology, and 
Pierce's definition of the whole science of English gram- 
mar? 

1. "Etymology includes a knowledge of the meaning, 
and use of words." Smith. 

2. " English Grammar consists of directions for speak 
ing and writing the English language correctly." Pierce. 



ETYMOLOGY. 59 

He that can subtract one cipher from another, can tell the 
difference between these two attempts at definitions ! 
Let me now consider the word, 

Etymology. 

This word is made from the Greek, etumon, a true ori- 
ginal, and from logos, doctrine, a word, &c. 

The first part of this word, etymology, is etumon. Now 
observe, etumon does not mean a word, but it means any 
thing which happens to be the true original of another 
thing. For instance, the^?'^ painting from which a second 
has been taken, is an etumon. Observe again, the only- 
part of the compound word, etymology, which conveys any 
allusion to words, is logy, or ology. 

This part, ology, is derived from logos ; and, as logos, 
may mean word, the word, etymology, may be applied to 
ivords. But to what kind of words may the word, etymo- 
logy, be applied ? This question is answered in this part, 
etumon. Authority is derived from logos, to apply the 
word, etumon, to ivords ; yet not to any, and all words ; 
for, while the word, logos, gives authority for the applica- 
tion of the word, etumon, to words, the word, etumon, has 
the authority, the power, to decide the kind of words ! 
And, as the meaning of the word, etumon, is the power which 
it exerts in making this decision, the only kind of words 
to which etumon can be applied, is that class which is com- 
posed of true originals. This truth Mr. Webster well 
understood at the time he penned his definition of the second 
part of English grammar: in that definition this truth is 
clearly recognised. Hear what he there says : 

" Etymology treats of .the derivation of words from 
their radicals''' — from their true originals. 

The word, etymology, is legitimately applied to the doc- 
trine, or principles of deriving one word from another ; 
and beyond this, it can not be applied in the science of 
phrenody. 

Etymology may be defined to be that part of the science 
of phrenody, which teaches the laws, or principles of con- 
structing new words from old ones. 

I. Principle. 
In forming a new word from two, or more old ones, each 
old word should be of the same language. 



60 ETYMOLOGY. 

This principle is observed in the formation of the word, 
etymology, from its two originals, etumon, and logos. 

Nor is this principle less obvious in the source of the 
word, homicide. This word is made from homo, a man, 
a human being, and csedo, to kill ; and these elements are 
both Latin. 

In the formation of the word, hexangular, however, 
there is a violation of this principle. The two elements 
from which this word is formed, are the Greek, hex, six, 
and the Latin, angulus, a corner. Or, as Webster has it, 
from the Greek, hex, and the English, angular. But as 
this word can be formed entirely from Greek elements, this 
obliquity from a great principle in etymology, is without 
excuse. It may be formed from the Greek, hex, six, and 
from gonia, a corner : hex-gonial, or hexagonal. 

II. Principle. 

In forming a new word from one, or more old ones, as 
much of the old should be retained as possible. 

This principle is illustrated in the retention of the silent 
h, in diphthong, and trip/* thong ; the silent g, in gnomon ; 
also in the retention of the ph, and h in phthisic. Diph- 
thong is from the Greek, diphthongos; triphthong is formed 
from triphthongos ; gnomon from gnomon; and phthisic, 
from phthisis. Had no regard been paid to this rule in 
Etymology, these words would stand as follows, 

Dipthong, tripthong, nomon, tisic. 

In the formation of 'frenzy, frenetic, and some others, there 
is a violation of this rule. These words are from the Greek, 
phreneticos, and the substitution of f for ph is contrary to 
a well-known etymological principle. 

III. Principle. 

In forming words in which sub is a prefix, b is changed 
for p, where the body of the word begins with p ; for m, 
where it begins with m; and fory, where it begins withy 1 . 

This principle is illustrated in the formation of the fol- 
lowing words : 

Sup-ply, from sub, and pleo, Sup-plicate, from sub, and 
plico, Suffix, from sub, and figo, Su/yiate, from sub, 
and flo, Sum-mons, from submoneas. 

Perhaps I have already extended these principles beyond 
what may be deemed necessary to the accomplishment of 



ETYMOLOGY. 61 

the object for which they have been introduced. Still, 
however, I wish to subjoin the following principle, to which 
I must invite close attention. 

IV. Principle. 

The signification of the parent word, should be similar 
to that of the derived one. Or, 

The signification of the old word, should be similar to 
that of the new. Or, 

The signological character of the new word, should find 
a sound basis in the signological character of the old one. 

The rejection of this principle is the adoption of the doc- 
trine that new words may be formed from nothing but 
sounds, and letters. In other words, he that denies the 
soundness of this principle, advocates the formation of new 
words from materials totally destitute of signification ! Re- 
ject this principle, and. the only source from which new 
words can be derived, is the alphabet, and unmeaning 
sounds ! If then, an author has an idea for which he has 
no sign, he would have nothing to do in procuring one but 
to give a new combination of alphabetical, or rudicative 
characters. Upon this plan of forming new words, we 
might have ol, dreed, ing, edf, en, frequendize, oold, vek, 
gead, &c. as words. Would any man sanction this method 
of word-making ? O, no ! Yet, there is no difference be- 
tween this method of forming words, and that by which 
thousands have been introduced into our language ! 

Let me repeat the principle which I wish to illustrate, 
and enforce : 

" The signological character of the parent word should 
form a sound basis for the signological character of the 
new one." 

Let us first inquire what constitutes this " sound basis." 
The sound basis mentioned in this important principle in 
etymology, is similarity in meaning. Hence the three 
grounds in which this principle is expressed, differ in 
nothing but form. Let me now submit a few words which 
have the sanction of this principle. 

I. Aphony. (Greek, a, not, and phone, a voice.) 
Aphony, without a voice, having no voice. 
The first part (a) of this word, is a Greek negative; the 
second part, phony, is formed from the Greek word, phone, 

7 



62 ETYMOLOGY. 

which means voice. Hence it is obvious that the signolo- 
gical character of aphony, has a sound base in the signo- 
logieal character of the original words from which it is 
formed. 

II. Tornado. (Latin, tornatus.) 

Tornado, a whirlwind. 

The Latin word, tor no, from the perfect participle of 
which, tornodo is formed, signifies to turn, or to go round 
like a wheel. Hence the meaning of tornado is fairly de- 
rived from the import of its true original. 

III. Atheist. (Greek, a, not, and theos, God.) 
Atheist, one who denies the being of a God. 
From the Greek, a, not, and theos, God. The base of 

the import of atheist, is sound enough. 

Let me now give some instances in which the meaning 

of the derived word, has no sound basis in the import of 

the parent word. 

I. Article. (Latin, articulus, a joint.) 
1. Article, an article of agreement, or other things which 
serve to connect. 

As this word is derived from articulus, a joint, its appli- 
cation to an instrument of writing is sanctioned by its ety- 
mology : the joint connects the two parts of the limb : and 
the instrument of writing connects the parties. Hence this 
instrument may be called an article. The instrument of 
writing is the joint between the two parties. 

This word is also properly applied to a clause; for a 
clause of an instrument of writing, serves to connect what 
precedes it, and what follows it. Here we have the idea 
of the joint : articulus, a joint. But is there any thing in 
the import of the Latin, articulus, which justifies the appli- 
cation of the word, article, to a, an, and the? Do these 
parts of speech resemble joints ? Had the old school 
grammarians applied this name, article, to that part of speech 
which they call a verb, to that which they call a Conjunc- 
tion, or to that which they denominate a preposition, I 
should feel bound to admit the legitimacy of their applica- 
tion. In the verb, conjunction, and preposition there may 
be seen a connective character. This may be seen by 
omitting them in the following instances : 

1. John loves Sarah. John Sarah. 



ETYMOLOGY. 63 

2. The arms of John. Arms John. 

3. I called John, for I wanted him. I called John, I 
wanted him. 

1 . As the name of a clause, in an instrument of writing, &c. 
"article" must be considered a word. But, as the name 
of a, an, and the, "article" can not be considered a word 
any more than oU dreed, or any other combination of let- 
ters, formed directly from the alphabet I It seems to me 
that a combination of sounds, or a combination of letters, 
can not be a word, unless it, (the combination) derives a 
signological character from the very elements out of which 
it, (the combination) is formed ! Is it true that men of 
letters do recognise such combinations of sounds, and let- 
ters as can lay no claim to any import, to any meaning 
whatever, except that which this, or that individual may 
have affixed to them, as words ? Provided these combina- 
tions are formed from some older combinations which are 
considered words. What, then, does the phrase, "form- 
ing a new word" or coining new words mean ? Does 
this phrase mean the derivation of nothing but the mere 
body of a new word from the old word? To derive a word 
is not only to form the body of the new word, but also the 
import, the meaning of the new word from the old ! Can, 
for example, the word, plural, be derived from phiralis, 
without bringing along with it the plural import of phiralis ? 
Would not the application of plural to but one thing, destroy 
all idea of its being derived from the Latin, pluralis ? 

The moment plural is applied to what is inconsistent 
with the Latin, pluralis, it ceases to be a derivative from 
pluralis ! If you apply plural as the name of light, or 
darkness, you render it an arbitrary combination of letters, 
formed directly from the alphabet itself. Away with the 
idea, then, that the "plural" thus applied, would be our 
legitimately applied plural, by which we signify more than 
one. It would not only not be our plural, but it would not 
be brother to ours ! It would not descend from the same 
parent. Indeed, it is a slander upon verbal pedigree to 
say that the derived word must find its body in some well- 
formed Greek, or Latin original, but that it may find its 
soul, its vital spark, in convenience, necessity, caprice, or 
ignorance ! A new word, then, may be defined to be, 

A frame-work of letters, or a frame-work of sounds, 



64 ETYMOLOGY. 

v?ho$eform, and whose signification find a sound basis in 
the original word, or words from which this frame-work is 
said to be formed. 

1. Immaculate, not having a moral blemish. 

This word is formed from in, not, or without, and ma- 
cula, a spot. This verbal frame-work finds a sound basis 
for its form, and for its meaning in the original words from 
which it is formed. 

2. Immure, to imprison, to put within walls. 

This verbal frame-work is formed from in, within, and 
murus, a wall, and finds a sound basis for its form, and im- 
port, in these original words. 

3. Timous, early. Bacon. 

Lord Bacon wished to form a word which should sig- 
nify early. For this purpose he subjoins ous to the word, 
time ; time-ous. But, as ous does not mean early, nor any 
thing like it, how can time-ous signify early? If the mean- 
ing of the word, time, derives any qualification from this 
suffix, ous, it must derive that which the import of ous is 
calculated to produce. Now, ous imports partaking of, 
consisting of, resembling, or, full of. Thus slander 
with ous affixed, means, not early slander, but par- 
taking of, consisting of slander; as, the report was slander- 
ous. Tulmultuows signifies full of tumult. The word, 
time-ous, must mean, not early, but consisting of time, 
partaking of time, resembling time, or, full of time. Run- 
ning water may be said to be timous, because like time it 
runs on. Timous as defined by Bacon has no sound signo- 
logical basis in time : therefore the word, timous, as mean- 
ing early, if it is a w r ord, has never been derived from time! 
Bacon pretends to derive it from time : but he may as well 
pretend that he derived, or formed gold from wood! The 
signification which Bacon gives to timous was never in the 
word, time: hence this import could never have been de- 
rived from the word, time. 

4. Orthography, the art of writing ivords accurately. 
This frame- work of letters, is formed from the Greek, 

orthos, right, and grapho, to write. That this word finds 
a sound basis in its original elements for its shape, for its 
form, can not be disputed : Orthography, orthos- grapho. 
The person of the offspring resembles the person of the 
parent. But in what way a sound basis for the meaning 



ETYMOLOGY. 65 

of the derivative is to be found in the primitives, is not at 
all obvious. OrtJios means right, accurate; grapho sig- 
nifies to write, without the least intimation what is to be 
written ! Did grapho signify not only to write, but to 
write words, then indeed a sound basis for the pretended 
meaning of orthography could be found in its original ele- 
ments ! But as we may write letters, sentences, deeds, 
agreements, histories, travels, books, and lives as well as 
words, where is the authority for confining the word ortho- 
graphy to the writing of words ? The true import of or- 
thography is the just, the right formation of any thing . 
whatever which can be formed by the act of writing. Let 
us endeavour to bring this point to a sound test. Let us, 
then, suppose that some recent production has been picked 
up in which there are numerous strange things, and that 
among them is found the following word which the writer 
pretends he has constructed from orthos, and grapho: 

Orthojic. 

What ! orthojic ! Orthotic, derived from orthos, and 
grapho ! ! What punishment would a literary court inflict 
upon the author of this crime in etymology ? Suppose him 
to be before Lord Bacon himself! His Lordship would 
tremble with indignation ; and the identity of the culprit 
would constitute the form, and substance of the entire trial ! 
But when the question of form should be addressed by his 
lordship, " What have you to say why sentence should not 
be pronounced against you?" would there not be some 
cogency in the following reply ? 

" If your Lordship's erudition can place your Lordship's 
offences above the law, may not my ignorance place mine 
within the mercy of its ministers ? If my pretension that 
orthojic is formed from orthos, and grapho, is to banish me 
from the literary world, what should become of your Lord- 
ship's peruke for your Lordship's pretension that your 
Lordship had derived timous as importing early, from the 
word, time, and that too by affixing ous?" If timous 
means early, its etymology is obscure indeed ! And, if 
orthojic has been constructed from orthos, and grapho, its 
workmanship is bad indeed. 

Let us now apply the definition of a new word to the 
word, etymology. 

A new word is a frame-work of letters, or a frame-work 

rr # 



66 ETYMOLOGY. 

of sounds, whose form, and whose signification find a 
sound basis in the original word, or words from which 
this frame-work is said to be formed. 

Now, observe, it is said that the word, etymology is 
constructed from etumon, and logos. Hence etumon, and 
logos are the older words : therefore they are called the old 
words, or the original words from which the new word, 
etymology, is constructed. Let us in the first instance 
compare the form of the new word with the form of the 
old one : 

NEW. OLD. 

Etymology etumon-logos. 

So far as the similarity in form is competent to render 
this etymology of the word, etymology, probable, the posi- 
tion that etymology is formed from etumon-logos, is well 
sustained. The selected original elements certainly resem- 
ble in form, the word, etymology. But let me endeavour 
to make myself better understood on the doctrine of the 
analogy inform between the originals, and the derivatives. 
The original words are the last on which the new word 
must be made : and as the shoe must resemble the last in 
form, on which it is made, so must the new word resemble 
the old one. 

I have said that the old word is the last on which the new 
word is shaped: the old words are not only the last on 
which the new word must he partially shaped, but they are 
to a very considerable extent, the very materials out of 
which the new word is formed. Let us, then, compare the 
shoe, and the last, first in a mere frame-work, and secondly, 
in a significant point of view. 

1. The last: etumon-logos. 

2. The shoe: etymology. 

Let us now see whether the new word has retained a 
tolerable degree of the signification of the old ones. Or, 
in other words, whether the shoe, and its pretended last 
have a tolerable degree of similarity in signification. If 
this is not the case, it would seem to follow that the pre- 
sented last is not that on, by, and from which the presented 
word has been formed. And indeed, if this is not the case, 
it would seem to follow also that this particular shoe, ety- 
mology, has been formed directly from the alphabet, with- 
out the aid of any last whatever. 



ETYMOLOGY. 67 

Let us turn our attention once more to the exact import 
of the original words from which it is pretended that the 
word, etymology, has been formed. Etumon means a true 
original. It may be a true original paper, painting, state- 
ment, agreement, &c. 

11 Logos" means a word. The word, etymology, then, 
considered as the offspring of etumon-logos, must be con- 
fined to the sort of words to which etumon-logos is applied : 
or it must be confined to some process, doctrine, or princi- 
ples which belong exclusively to this sort of words. " Lo- 
gos" also means doctrine: hence, the word, etymology, 
may mean the doctrine of ivords. But it can not mean the 
doctrine of all words : it can be applied to the doctrine 
of true original words. That is, words from which new 
words are made. " Etymology," then, is applied to the 
doctrine, to the principles of forming old words into new 
ones. The old school grammarians, however, apply it, not 
to the derivation of one word from another, but to the divi- 
sion of words into ten parts of speech ! Let us now inquire 
whether this application of the word, etymology, finds any 
justification in the import of the original words from which 
etymology is said to be derived ? That " etymology^ as " 
meaning true original words, (that is, the words from which 
others are made,) is formed, derived, from etumon, and 
logos, is not denied. But it is denied that " etymology," 
as meaning the division of words into parts of speech, is 
derived from etumon, and logos! This import was never 
in etumon, and logos ; nor was any import ever in etu- 
mon, and logos, which can at all sanction this application 
of etymology. If, then, the idea of dividing words into 
parts of speech was never in etumon, and logos, how can 
this idea, this trait of signological character have been 
derived from these words ! ? But this is not all : the old 
school grammarians apply etymology to the gender, time, 
mood, number, and person of words ! Is there any part 
of the meaning of etumon, or of logos, which conveys any 
allusion whatever to plural, to singular, to time, to sex, 
to the distinction of persons into speakers, auditors, &c. ? 
I can not be in an error on this point, for every Grammar 
of the old school stamp, treats of gender, number, time, 
mood, and speakers, and hearers, and neither, under the 
head of Etymology. Yea, more : they also bring all the 
distinctions of articles into definite, and indefinite, of nouns 



68 ETYMOLOGY. 

into common, and proper, participial, and abstract, of pro- 
nouns into personal, relative, neuter, interrogative, com- 
pound, and adjective, of verbs into active, neuter, passive, 
regular, irregular, transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, and 
principal, of participles into present, perfect, and com- 
pound, of adjectives into cardinal, ordinal, numeral, &c. 
&c. ! ! Nor is this all : the cases of nouns, and pronouns 
are also brought under the word, etymology, which means 
merely the doctrine of forming old words into new ones in 
such a way as will infuse into the new, iheform, and mean- 
ing of the old ! ! Thus much for the abuse of the word, 
etymology. Let us now make a few reflections upon the abuse 
of that part of the science of syntax, which the old school 
grammarians call etymology. 

This part of the science of syntax comprises forty, or 
fifty totally dissimilar things ; yet these are all brought into 
one great class, or rather forced into one group, and em- 
braced by one name as though they were attracted to each 
other by the loadstone of analogy in their characteristic 
parts ! The division of words into ten parts of speech, and 
the gender of nouns are brought into the same class, and 
both called etymology! But is there any analogy between 
the division of words into parts of speech, and the sex of 
animals ? Why, then, is gender, and this division brought 
under the same name ? I presume that the advocates of 
the old system are ready to say that the error of which I 
here complain, is not confined to the old school grammari- 
ans. I shall be triumphantly asked if I have not included 
the division of words into parts of speech, and gender un- 
der the name of syntax. My reply is that I have ; and my 
defence is, that this division, and gender both fall under 
the idea of construction. Does it follow, because the en- 
tire living race is included under the name, animal, that, in 
the subdivisions of this great kingdom of beings, bipeds, and 
quadrupeds can be brought into one class, and designated 
by the same name ? As philosophy is a general term under 
which all the branches of philosophy are brought, so syn- 
tax is a general name under which all the branches of syn- 
tax fall. And, as it does not follow, because all the branches 
of philosophy are included under the general term, philoso- 
phy, that, in naming the subdivisions, or different branches 
of philosophy, two dissimilar branches can be amalgamated, 
and included under the same name, so it does not follow, 



ETYMOLOGY. 69 

because all the branches of syntax are first included under 
the general name, syntax, that, in making the subdivisions 
of this entire science, two dissimilar parts can be included 
under the same name ! 

The word, philosophy, is applied to theology, physics, 
logic, ethics, metaphysics, chemistry, botany, &c. But 
will it be contended because "philosophy" may be applied 
to all these, that theology, and chemistry may be amalga- 
mated, and both branches pass by the same name I As 
well might dissimilar branches in philosophy be included 
under one, and the same name, as in syntax! If, there- 
fore, it is consistent to include the division of words into 
parts of speech, and the sex of animals, in the same branch 
of grammar, it is consistent to include theology, and chemis- 
try in the same branch of philosophy ! The truth is that 
what is called etymology by the old school grammarians, 
comprises four dissimilar parts of syntax. These in the 
new system, are denominated, 

1. Er-O-AGE, 

2. Sen-te-ol-o-gy, 

3. Syn-cla-be-ol-o-gy, and 

4. Sem-e-nol-o-gy. 

I. Epoage is that part of Syntax, which respects the 
frame-work rank of the words of a sentence. The rank of 
a word respects its relative importance, not in point of 
sense, but in point of frame- work, or construction. Upon 
this principle, there are two great families of words, namely, 
cormes, and clades. 

1. A corme is a foundation word in the frame-work of a 
sentence ; as, this boy writes very well. (Boy.) 

2. A clade is an unfoundational word, or a word which 
bears a branch relation to some other word in the sentence ; 
as, this boy writes very well. (This, ivrites, very well.) 

The etymology of epoage, corme, and clade. 

1. Up-o-age is constructed from epos, a word, and the 
affix, age, rank. 

2. Corme is derived from kormos, the trunk, or founda- 
tion part of a tree, and means the basis word, or that part 
which is not only capable of sustaining itself, but others 
also ; as, boy, man, book. 

3. Clade is constructed from klados, a branch, and means 



70 ETYMOLOGY. 

a word which bears the same frame-work relation to an- 
other word, which a branch bears to its trunk ; as, This 
boy, Boy writes. (See English Syntax, page 32, and 
English Syntascope, page 65.) 

II. Senteology is that part of Syntax, which respects 
the sentence-forming, and the want of the sentence-form- 
insi; power in the words of a sentence. Or, 

Senteology respects the cordictive power, or the want 
of the cordictive power in the cormes, and clades of a 
gnomod. 

The cormes are divided under Senteology, into po-e- 
corrnes, and ne-po-e-cormes ; and the clades, into gnoma- 
clades, and agnomaclades. 

" Moses smote the rock." 
Moses, apoecorme. (Poe, a sentence maker.) 

smote, a gnomaclade. (Gnoma, capable of being made into a 

sentence, or gnomod.) 
the, an agnomaclade. (A, not ; agnoma, not capable of being 

formed into a gnomod.) 
rock, a nepoecorme. (iVe, not ; a corme which does not make, 

or form the gnomaclade into the gno- 
mod.) 

See English Syntascope, page 118. 

Etymology of senteology. Senteology is constructed 
from sentential, containing sentences, and logos, doctrine. 
Senteology means the sentential power, agency, or prin- 
ciple, or the want of this power, agency, or principle in 
the words of a sentence. (Syntax, page 42. Syntascope, 
page, 118, 224.) 

III. Syn-cla-de-ol-o-gy is that part of Syntax, which 
treats of that subdivision of clades, which is founded upon 
their frame-work relation to other words. (Syntax, page 
44. Syntascope, page 122, 124.) 

The etymology of this word. Syncladeolo gy is con- 
structed from sun, with, or together, klados, a branch, and 
logos, doctrine, principle. 

The first classification of the words of a sentence, is 
founded upon their frame-work grade. This principle of 
dividing words into parts of speech, is called epoage. 
(Epos, a word, and age, rank.) Under epoage, words are 
divided into cormes, and clades. 

The second classification of the words of a gnomod, is 
founded upon that part of syntax, which is called sente- 



ETYMOLOGY. 71 

ology. Under senteology cormes are subdivided into 
poecovmes, and nepoecormes ; and clades into gnomaclades, 
and agno?nacl'ddes. 

The third subdivision, or subordinate classification of 
words, is confined to clades ; and is made under that part 
of syntax, which is denominated syncladeology. But, 
before I proceed with this part, it may be well to give the 
etymology of poecorme, nepoecorme, gnomaclade, and 
agnomaclade. 

1. Poecorme is from poi-e-tes, a former, a maker, and 
corme, a basis word in the frame-work of a gnomod, and 
means that corme which forms the gnomaclade into the 
sentence ; as, /am John, He saw me. (/, he.) 

2. Nepoecorme is formed from ne, not, or non, and from 
poecorme, the sentence-former, and means that corme 
which does not form, or make the gnomaclade into the sen- 
tence ; as, I am John, He saw me. (John, me.) 

3. Gnomaclade is formed from gnome, a sentence, from 
atos, capable of being made, and clade, a branch word, and 
means a clade which is capable of being formed into a gno- 
mod, or sentence ; as, am, saw, writes, &c. (Syntax, 
page 41, 42, 43. Syntascope, page 118.) 

Note. Atos is a Greek affix, and is synonymous with the common 
English suffix, able, as found in moveable, changeable, sentenceable, 
gnomeable. That which is capable of being moved, of being changed, 
of being formed into a sentence, of being formed into a gnomod. 

1. Gnome, contracted to gnom, indicates into what the 

gnomaclade may be formed. 

2. Atos, contracted to a, indicates that the word which is 

called a gnomaclade, is capable of being formed. 

3. Clade indicates that the word which is called a gnoma- 

clade bears a mere branch relation to some corme. 
Gnom a clade. 
He contemplates. 

4. Agnomaclade is formed from a, not, and gnomaclade, 

and means a clade which can not be formed into a 

gnomod : as, this, of, the, her, good. 
(Syntax, page 42, 43. Syntascope, page 42, 119.) 
Let me now resume Syncladeology. 
Syncladeology is the doctrine, or principle of naming 
clades after those words with which they hold a frame- 



72 ETYMOLOGY. 

work relation. The principle of syncladeology is common: 
it is acted upon in numerous instances in giving distinctive 
names to the most familiar objects about us. For instance, 
the nails which constitute parts of you, and me, are named 
upon the very principle of syncladeology. These nails de- 
rive a specific frame-work character, and a distinctive frame- 
work name from the parts to which they bear a clados rela- 
tion. They have a constructive relation to the fingers, 
thumbs, &c. Hence they are called finger nails, thumb 
nails, &c. 

Again, a band is called a hat band ; and a pipe is called 
a stove pipe upon the principle of syncladeology. The 
thing to which the pipe is connected, not only gives it a 
specific character, but furnishes it with a distinctive name 
for this distinctive character. A clade derives a distinctive 
character, and a distinctive name from the very word on 
which it has a frame-work dependence ; and Syncladeol- 
ogy is the principle on which this character is formed, and 
named. 

I. Under Syncladeology gnomaclades are subdivided 
into, 

1. Poecorme gnomaclades, 

2. Nepoecorme gnomaclades, and 

3. Dicorme gnomaclades. 

II. Under Syncladeology agnomacladcs are subdivided 
into, 

1. ikfetaclades, 

2. Steroclzdes, 

3. C/onoclades, and 

4. .Mmoclades. 

1. The poecorme gnomaclade is a clade which holds a 
frame-work relation with the poecorme only ; as, John 
went to school, Jane can write letters. (John went, Jane 
can.) 

2. The nepoecorme gnomaclade is one which holds a 
frame-work connection with the nepoecorme only ; as, I 
told him to return. (Him to return.) 

3. The dicorme gnomaclade is one which holds a con- 
structive connection with the poe, and with the nepoe corme 
both ; as, Moses smote the rock, I went to acquire chemis- 
try. (Bi, both.) 



ETYMOLOGY. 73 

I will now define the me/a, the stero, the clono, and the 
mono elade. 

1. Meta implies from one thing to another : a meta shoe 
is one which can be moved from one foot to the other. 

2. Stero signifies fixed, immoveably placed. A stero 
shoe, then, is one which is confined to one foot. ; 

The word, metaclade, is contracted from metacormeclade, 
and signifies a clade which may be applied to, or used with, 
both kinds of corme : the poe, and the nepoe ; as, the boy 
found the book, Good men do good deeds. 

The word, steroclade, is contracted by syncopation (syn- 
copation, the act of contracting words by taking portions 
from their middle) from steronepoecormeclade. This part, 
nepoecorme, is cut out ; and the word is reduced from 
an inconvenient, to a convenient length : steroclade. But 
you may wish to know whether any portion of the mean- 
ing of the original word is lost in this act of syncopa- 
tion. None: steroclade, and steronepoecormeclade are 
synonymous : both mean that the clade is immoveably 
attached to the nepoecorme ; as, wnfo me, oj 'him, I went 
with John. {With John.) 

3. C/onoclade is framed from clonos, a branch, and clade, 
a branch word, and signifies a clade of a clade, a cladeic 
clade. A c/onoclade is not a branch which grows upon the 
trunk, but a branch which grows upon another branch ; as, 
remarkably fine apples, John writes too fast. 

Remarkably is a c/onoclade belonging to fine. Too is a 
clonoclade belonging to fast; and fast is a cZonoclade be- 
longing to writes. (See Syntax, page 46, 140. Synta- 
scope, page 124, 130.) 

4. I will now attempt to define a 7?20ttoclade. 

A monoclade is an agnomaclade which stands conjected, 
or applied to an entire mono ; as, [I was told not to re- 
turn] therefore (I remained here.) 

The word, mono, is from monos, alone, and means that 
part, or that number of parts, which .can be taken, w T hich 
can be considered, which can be analyzed alone. That 
clade which is applied to a mono, is as much a monoclade, 
as is that band which is applied to a hat, a. hat band. 

The following gnomod is divided into monos. 
[The power (of speech) is a faculty] ( , , pecu- 

liar) (to man ;) (and , was bestowed) (on him) (by 

8 



74 ETYMOLOGY. 

his beneficent Creator) (for the greatest , ;) 

(and , , , ) ( , , most excellent 
uses ;) (but (alas) how often do we pervert it) (to the 
worst , ) (of purposes.) 

And is a monoc\.2.de, belonging to the implied mono, it 
was bestowed. 

But is a monocla.de, belonging to the mono, how often 
do we pervert it. (Syntax, page 45, 139. Syntascope, 
page 124, 130.) 

The word, Semenology, is constructed from the Greek, 
semsenos, to distinguish, to mark a difference, and logos, 
doctrine, principle, and means the principles, or doctrine of 
the distinctions that words of the same class make among 
the things which they signify ; as, 

1. Boy, boys. (Distinction in number.) 

2. Boy, girl. (Distinction in gender.) 

3. Man, Moses. (Distinction between a race, and indi- 
viduals.) 

4. High, higher, highest. (Distinction in degree.) 

5. Write, wrote. (Distinction in time.) 

6. /, thou. (Distinction between the former, and the 
auditor of the sentence,) 

(See Syntax, page 55. Syntascope, page 139, 225.) 

In the following scheme the divisions, and distinctions 
which are made under epoage, senteology, syncladeol- 
ogy, and semenology, are presented under their respective 
parts. 

I. Under Epoage. 

1. Corme, 

2. Clade. 

II. Under Senteology. 

i. Cormes are subdivided into, 

1. Poecormes, 

2. JVepoecormes. 

ii. Clades are subdivided into, 

1. Gnomacl&des, 

2. Agnomac\3,des 



ETYMOLOGY. 75 

III. Under Syncladeology. 

i. Gnomaclades are subdivided into 

1. Poecorme gnomoclades, 

2. Nepoecorme gnomoclades, 

3. Dicorme gnomoclades. 

ii. Jlgnomaclades are subdivided into, 

1. Metaclzdes, 

2. *Sfor0clades, 

3. C/onoclades, 

4. ilfo/ioclades. 

IV. Under Semenology. 

i. Cormes are subdivided into, 

1. Generic, 

2. Individual, and 

3. Proxy. 

ii. Cormes have, 

1. Indication, 

2. Numeration, 

3. Pluration, and 

4. Gender. 

(1) The indications are, 

1. Formative, 

2. Auditive, and 

3. Sin-e-functional. 

(2) The numerations are, 

1. Singular, and 

2. Plural. 

(3) The plurations are, 

1. s, es, ves, ies, 

2. en, ee, ic, ice, 

3. im, x, i, a, 

4. nepos, and sense. 

(4) The genders are, 

1. Masculine, 

2. Feminine, 

3. Ambi, and 

4. Muo, or mute. 



76 



ETYMOLOGY. 



i. Gnomaclades are subdivided into, 

1. Edable, and 

2. Inedable. 

ii. Gnomaclades have, 

1. Position, and 

2. Timedex. 

(1) The positions are, 

1. Formative, and 

2. Exformative. 

(2) The timedexes are, 

1. Phemic, 

2. Presynphemic, 

3. Prea'zphemic, 

4. Presi/ndiphemic, 

5. Pos tphemic, 

6. Prepostphemic. 

i. Jlgnomoclades have, 
Indication. 
The indications are, 

1. Sub, 

2. Supersub, and 

3. Super. 

(See English Syntascope, page 183.) 

In the preceding illustration of the four parts into which 
I have divided that branch of English Syntax, called by the 
old school grammarians, etymology, I have demonstrated 
four distinct general principles. This demonstration will 
enable me to show most conclusively that the division of 
words into parts of speech, and number, person, mood, 
tense, case, &c. cannot be brought under the same subordi- 
nate head without a total disregard to system in teaching, 
and truth in science. 

To divide words into syllables is to separate their sylla- 
bles ; as, in con-tem-pla-tion. 

But to divide words into parts of speech, is to separate, 
and group them also upon syntax principles. The want 
of a certain syntax characteristic in words, separates them ; 
and the possession of this certain characteristic groups them. 
The most general principle in syntax upon which words 
are separated, and grouped, is called epoage. 



ETYMOLOGY. 77 

Epoage includes two syntax characteristics, namely, a 
cormos relation, and a dados relation. (Trunk, and branch 
relation.) Those words in a sentence, which have not the 
dados relation, are separated from those which have this 
characteristic, and grouped together because they have the 
cormos relation. Those which have not the cormos rela- 
tion, are separated from those which have this characteris- 
tic, and grouped together because they have the dados rela- 
tion. Upon this principle there are two distinct parts of 
speech in a sentence, and but two. But the phrase, "parts 
of speech" is unmeaning, and should be rejected. Any 
thing which belongs to speech is a part of speech ! Words 
are divided upon the principle of epoage into two orders, 
viz. cormes, and clades. These two orders are subdivided 
upon a basis totally different from those frame-work 
principles which constitute epoage. The question, then, is 
whether number, person, time, Sic. can be brought under 
epoage. Does the number of a corme, or of a clade, bear a 
trunk, or a branch relation to some other word ? Certainly 
not. Epoage, then, has nothing to do with number, gen- 
der, &c. Number is not divided into foundational, and un- 
foundational. But it may be said that, as number be- 
longs to cormes, and clades, it must fall under the head of 
epoage. Upon this principle, poeology (word-making) falls 
under epoage. Who will pretend that orthography does 
not belong to nouns, verbs, &c. ? Has not the word, book, 
an orthography ? We speak of the orthography of a word 
as being correct, or otherwise, as much as we do of the 
number of a word as being singular or plural. 

Again, if number falls under the head of epoage merely 
because it belongs to cormes, and clades, the meaning, the 
very signification of words, must fall under this head ! Does 
not the meaning of a corme belong to a corme, and that 
of a clade to a clade ? But upon what principle is the 
meaning of words thrown from under the head of epo- 
age ? Upon the ground that epoage is without that cognate 
principle which is necessary to a recognition of any thing 
whatever which is not classed upon frame-work rank, 
frame- work order. The meaning, the number, the gen- 
der, the mood, and the tense of words can not be classed upon 
frame-work rank : these things have no frame-work rank. 
Therefore they can not be brought under that part of syn- 

8* 



78 ETYMOLOGY. 

tax on which the words of a sentence are divided into 
cormes, and clades.', 

The first principle upon which the two orders of words 
are subdivided is the power, or the ivant of the power to aid 
in some way, or other in the production of a sentence cha- 
racter. This principle is called senteology. That is, the 
doctrine of the power, and the want of power to aid in the 
production of a sentence character. (An affirmation, a 
subfirmation, an interrogation, a command, or a petition.) 

Under senteology words are classed, not according to 
their gender, number, person, but according to their gno- 
modic, or the want of the gnomodic power to aid in the 
production of a gnomod. 

Under senteology, therefore, cormes are subdivided into 
poecormes, and nepoecoxmes; and clades, into gnomaclades 
and agnomacl<ides. 

The next principle of action in the classification of words 
is one which is confined to the dados order. It is denomi- 
nated syncladeology ; it is the common pedigree principle 
applied in naming clades. The child is named after some 
one to whom he is connected. For instance, a lad is called 
Joseph because he stands connected by uncleship to a man 
of this name. A clade is called a mono-clade because it 
stands connected to an entire mono. Another is called 
a meta-clade (me/a-corme-clade) because it can be moved 
from one corme to the other. (From the poecorme to the 
nepoe, and vice versa.) Another is called a stero-clade 
(steronepoecormeciade) because it is always fixed to the ne- 
poecorme. Another is called a clono-clade because it is fixed 
not to a corme, but to another clade. (Clonos, a clade, a 
branch.) Thus much for the subdivision of the agnoma- 
clades. Now for the gnomaclades. 

Some gnomaclades are called poecorme gnomaclades be- 
cause they stand connected in frame-work with the poecorme 
only. Some are denominated nepoecorme gnomaclades be- 
cause they are connected with nepoecormes only. And 
others are called dicorme gnomaclades because they hold a 
frame-work connection with both cormes at the same time. 
(Di, both.) 

I now come to the fourth distinct general principle which 
is denominated semenology. The word, semenology, sig- 
nifies the doctrine of those distinctions which words make 



ETYMOLOGY. 79 

independent of their dictionary import. Under this head 
fall number, gender, person, mood, tense, degree of com- 
parison, &c. (Man, men, Man, woman, King, queen, 
Good, better, best, Write, wrote, &c.) 

In the preceding reflections upon the subject of etymo- 
logy, I have by no means exhausted the theme. There is 
a numerous class of errors which the old school gramma- 
rians have committed under etymology, of which no expo- 
sition has yet been made. 

In the foregoing reflections I have attempted to demon- 
strate that the old school grammarians give unsound defini- 
tions of the subject of etymology, that they have applied 
the word, etymology, without the least sanction from its 
Greek elements, and that they have included four parts of 
grammar in the one which they call etymology ! In doing 
this, however, I have simply examined their store-house, 
and taken a hasty inventory of the materials which they 
work up. But I now intend to enter their very workshop, 
expose the principles upon which they operate, and the un- 
soundness of the articles which they turn out. This factory, 
this workshop, will be found to be the principiter which 
is attached to this work. 

The word, principiter, is formed from the Latin, princi- 
pium, and signifies the means which illustrates principles. 

The first Principiter is intended to illustrate the princi- 
ples on which the old system of English grammar makes 
parts of speech, and cases. The other is designed to show 
the principles on which the new system is formed. 

The parts marked A, B, D, F, H, O, P, Q, X, R, re- 
present the words of a sentence. In fact the Principiter 
itself is a sentence. 

1. Part, A, is called a conjunction. 

2. Part, B, an article. 

3. Part, D, an adjective. 

4. Part, F, a noun, in the nominative case. 

5. Part, H, as well as part O, is called a verb. 

6. Part, P, is denominated an adverb. 

7. Part, Q, a preposition. 

8. Part, X, a noun in the objective case. 

9. Part, R, an interjection. 

I have said that the diagram of principles, which is com- 
posed of these nine parts, is a sentence: this will appear 



80 ETYMOLOGY. 

obvious, as I advance in the examination of its construc- 
tive, and its significant character. The object of this ex- 
amination, however, is not to demonstrate the sentensic 
character of the Principiter, but to show the plan, the prin- 
ciple, on which the old school grammarians operate under 
etymology, in the formation of nouns, verbs, articles, adjec- 
tives, prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, participles, in- 
terjections, and cases! In the development of these princi- 
ples three distinct things demand close attention : 

1. The constructive, the frame-work, character of the 
Principiter. 

2. The significant, the indicative, character of it. 

3. The relative character of the things, or objects which 
the component parts of this Diagram of principles, point out. 

I. Constructive character of the Principiter. 

1. The construction comprises the exact ) \ r ' 
*W of each Umon, 

r [^mortise. 

2. The construction comprises the exact C tenon, 
size of each \ mortise. 

3. The construction comprises the particular frame-work 
relation which these parts bear to each other by means of 
their tenons, and mortises. 

4. The construction embraces that frame-work relation 
which part, A, by means of its brace, bears to the group of 
parts, which follows it. 

5. The construction embraces the exact relative position 
of all the parts. 

6. The construction includes the particular figure of the 
entire frame-work, the entire Principiter. 

7. The construction includes the particular influence, the 
sentence forming influence which part, F, exerts over part, 
H, in the production of the true sentence character of the 
Principiter : or, in other words, in the production of the 
five cordictions. 

8. The construction includes the sentential, the cordic- 
tive, elements which constitute the very nature, the very 
essence of parts, H, and O. (See the English Syntascope, 
page 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, &c., also page 119.) 

9. The construction includes the want of all agency, and 
the want of all aid on the part of those members which do not 



ETYMOLOGY. 81 

contribute anything to the production of the cordiction, the 
true, the logical sentence character which is produced by 
the joint contribution of F, and H. (H furnishes the cor- 
dictive elements, and F works them up into a cordiction, a 
sentence character.) 

10. The construction includes the frame-work rank of 
each part. (See English Syntascope, page 72.) 

11. The construction includes the number of frame-work 
connections of the same part. (See English Syntascope, 
page 104.) 

12. The constructive character includes every modifica- 
tion, every particular form, addition, or diminution, produced 
in, to, or from any parts to enable them to make a distinc- 
tion which the pure dictionary meaning of the parts does not 
enable them to make. For instance, distinctions in time, 
number, gender, degree, or distinctions with respect to the 
three functionaries of a sentence, viz. Formative, Auditive, 
and Sin-e. (Syntascope, from page 141, to 147.) 

13. The constructive character includes all those dis- 
tinctions which are acquired, and lost by the particular col- 
location of the parts. 

II. Signological character of the Principiter. 

The signology of the Principiter comprises the indicative 
action of the various hands which, by their significant fingers 
direct the mind to the different objects whose relative cha- 
racter is that principle on which the old school grammarians 
make their three cases, namely, nominative, objective, and 
possessive. 

III. Relative character of the things denoted. 

1 . Relative character is the offspring of some relation which 
one thing bears to another. Thus, John from his genealo- 
gical relation to his parents, acquires the relative character 
of child. That object which is marked a, derives its rela- 
tive character from the causative relation which it bears to 
the object marked d. So too, the object marked d, acquires 
its relative character from the offspring relation which it 
bears to the object marked a. What is the root, a, in rela- 
tion to the trunk, d? and what is the trunk, d, in relation 
to the root, a? The root is the cause; and the trunk is 
the effect. 

2. The circle, g, is a quality of the round table, i. This 



82 ETYMOLOGY. 

circle, then, has acquired an attribute character from its re* 
lation to this particular table i. 

3. The figure marked h, is a quality of the square table, 
w. Hence this figure, h, sustains an attribute character. 

4. The object marked k, is an agent ; that on the left 
of m, is his action ; and that marked u, is the object, or 
properly speaking, the subject of his action. Both k, and 
u bear a relation to this action ; and from this relation one 
derives the character of agent, and the other the character 
of subject, or object. 

Thus much for the relative character of the things which 
the principiter, the epeconical sentence denotes. 

I have now come to that place in the discussion of this 
subject, where it seems important to mention the true basis 
for a system of grammar. Before I do this, however, it 
may be well to mention again the three points which the 
reader should keep in his mind through the remainder of 
this article. 

1. The constructive character of the epeconical sentence. 

2. The significant character of this diagram. 

3. The relative character of the things denoted by it. 

The true basis for a system of grammar must depend 
upon which of the above characters, the author wishes to 
develop. If he desires to develop the relative character of 
the things which the words of a sentence, or which the 
parts of a principiter, denote, the foundation of his sys- 
tem must be the relative character of these things. If he 
wishes to develop the significant character of the compo- 
nent parts of a sentence, or the component parts of a prin- 
cipiter, the foundation of his system must be signology, 
the doctrine of the dictionary import of words. But, if he 
wishes to develop the constructive character of a sentence, 
and of its component parts, the foundation of his system 
must be the constructive, the frame-work philosophy of a 
sentence. He must not begin by affirming that grammar is 
the art of speaking, and writing with propriety ! Some- 
thing more than grammar is necessary to enable a man to 
speak, and write correctly. He must derive much from a 
dictionary, and not a little from a rhetoric, before he can 
either speak, or write with much propriety ! (See the Ap- 
peal, Chapter iv., page 112.) 



ETYMOLOGY. 83 

The wrongly using of one word for another, produces an 
error : but this is an error in rhetoric. For instance, 

44 I have no hesitation in expressing the surprise which I 
received" 

The construction, or in other words, the mechanism of 
the sentence, is correct : but the rhetoric of it is bad ; for 
we can not properly say that we receive surprise. This 
rhetorical mistake may be rectified by substituting felt for 
received. 

" I have no hesitation in expressing the surprise which I 
felt." 

These errors do not fall within the science of Syntax 

44 Syntax." The elements of this word are sun, and 
tasso, Greek. Sun signifies, together ; and tasso means, 
to put properly. The word, syntax, then, means to put 
things together in a proper manner. 

44 Suntasso" from which syntax has been derived, was 
used among the Greeks to denote the idea of the proper 
arrangement of soldiers for martial action, for military ex- 
ploit. Hence this word [syntax) has come to be the name 
of all the constructive evolutions which form sounds into 
monothongs, letters into monograms, monothongs, and mo- 
nograms into words, words into monos, monos into sen- 
tences, sentences into paragraphs, paragraphs into chapters, 
and chapters into a book. 

Syntax, however, does not include the whole science of 
language. But it does embrace every principle which can 
be denominated constructive. 

As I have introduced the word, constructive, it may not 
be amiss to say a few words upon its import in this science. 
The Hebrews denominated any variation in a word, the 
word's constructed, or constructive state. Ddbar is He- 
brew, and means word. "Ddbar" is put into a constructed 
state, by being changed to debar. This word in this con- 
structed state means word of. 

Hence Debar Elohim is in significant valuation, just 
equal to the phrase, God's word, or, word of God. 

Nor must he commence by affirming that, a verb signi- 
fies being, action, or suffering. The lexicographer pro- 
claims the signification of words ! Let the grammarian 
publish their construction ! (See the Appeal, Chapter xiii. 
page 206.) 



84 ETYMOLOGY. 

Nor must he begin by affirming that the nominative case 
is the name of the agent, the actor ! Let the grammarian 
speak of the influence which the nominative case exerts 
over the verb in the production of the sentence character. 
Whether the nominative case denotes the agent, the object, 
or neither, is no part of the grammarian's province to de- 
cide ! The relative character of the things denoted, is no 
part of grammar ! (See the Appeal, Chapter viii., page 
144.) 

But to be more formal : what does a system of grammar 
profess to teach ? Does it not undertake to teach the con- 
structive, the syntax character of language ? How, then, 
can it succeed in this undertaking while it founds all its dis- 
tinctions, classifications, and rules, not upon the construc- 
tive, but upon the significant character of words, and the 
relative character of the things denoted by words ? 

Mr. Murray, his predecessors, and his successors, have 
undertaken to teach the constructive principles of the Eng- 
lish Language ; and, incredible as it may appear, in all 
their attempts to accomplish this great object, they have 
founded their systems, not upon construction, but upon the 
signification of words, and the relation of things ! I That 
is, in their numerous attempts to form a system by which 
to teach the constructive character of the Principiter, they 
have paid no regard to this constructive character ; and 
founded a system partly upon its significant philosophy, 
and partly upon the relative character of the things which 
this diagrammic sentence, this diagrammic phrenod, points 
out! (Seepage .) 

Thus, instead of classing, and naming part, A, in refer- 
ence to its shape, in reference to its inability to sustain itself 
in the frame-work of parts, and instead of classing, and 
naming part, A, in reference to its frame-work relation to 
the entire group with which its brace unites it, this part is 
classed, and named in reference to the cause, the effect, the 
opposition, the addition, &c. &c. which it points out ! 
Whereas in classing this part, A, the different things which 
it points out by means of its indicating fingers, should be 
removed ; and nothing but the true frame-work relation of 
this part to the group of parts on which it has a frame- 
ivork bearing by means of its brace, should be made the 
basis of its classification, and of its distinctive name. 

Part, F, is a noun ; part, F, signifies a lad, a human be- 



ETYMOLOGY. 85 

ing, as distinctly as does the word, John. This, says the 
objector, I freely admit: I see that part, F, signifies the lit- 
tle fellow with a gun, who stands immediately before k. If, 
then, as the objector admits, part, F, is a noun because it 
points out, or signifies something, is not part, Q, also a 
noun ? Part, Q, points out that place which is named be- 
hind, that place which is named over, that place which is 
named above, that place which is named before, and that 
place which is named between, betwixt, atween, and atwixt. 
Does not part, Q, point out all these places as distinctly as 
does part, F, the lad standing before letter, k? Why, 
then, is not part, Q, a noun ? And, if part, Q, is a noun 
because it points out these places, why is not the word, be- 
hind, a noun ? You must admit one of two things : either 
the word, behind, is the name of that place which is occu- 
pied by the dot marked t, or this place has no name ! Will 
it be said that this place is without a name ; that we have 
not yet a sign, a word, by which to point out this place 
with which all are so familiar ? 

A noun, says the old system, is the name of any person, 
place, or thing ; as, heads, in the phrase, behind heads. 
The word, head, is called a noun by the old system : yet 
the word, behind, is excluded from the noun family upon 
the ground that it is not the name, the sign, of any person, 
place, or thing ! The word, head, is the name of a certain 
part which belongs to a body; and the word, behind, is the 
name of a certain place which belongs to this certain part : 
behind heads. Does not behind designate the place as de- 
finitely, as does the word, heads, these parts ? Why, then, 
is not the preposition, behind, a noun as much as the word, 
heads ! ? 

Let me invite you to accompany me into this tvork-shop, 
the Principiter. Let me call your attention carefully to 
the principles on which the old school artists operate in 
making words into parts of speech. Do be prevailed upon 
to give attention to this point in the right way : do not suf- 
fer any thing to divert your mind from this theme till time, 
and attention shall have made you master of it. Over 
each part of the Principiter, you see its name as a part of 
speech. You see, then, that the Principiter is divided 
into parts of speech. And I crave your undivided atten- 
tion while I attempt to illustrate the principles on which 
this Diagrammic sentence is made into ten parts of speech! 

9 



86 ETYMOLOGY. 

Now, the component parts of this epeconical gnomod, 
are words ; they have matter, form, and signification. 
The union of these three elements in one thing constitutes the 
thing a word. These parts are constructed, are syntaxed, 
are regularly put together by means of tenons, and mortises ; 
hence they constitute an assemblage of words. This assem- 
blage contains an affirmation; hence it, the assemblage, is 
a sentence, a gnomod. The assemblage makes the affirma- 
tion through the means of its watch which it, the assem- 
blage, has constructed frpm the cordictive, the sentential 
elements which belong to, and which constitute the senteo- 
logical portion of part H. (See Syntascope, page 14, 15, 
&c.) 

It is affirmed by the Principiter through the medium of 
its watch, that it is nine o'clock. Thus much to shew that 
the Principiter is a sentence. He that would see more, 
may examine the pages to which I have referred him. 

The principles upon which the old school grammarians 
make the component parts of the Principiter into parts of 
speech, are clear, though false : they are taught with the 
greatest care, though they are totally irrelevant to the sub- 
ject of grammar. I shall commence with the principle on 
which they make certain parts of a Principiter, or Sentence 
into nouns. And, although I am aware that I shall repeat 
much of what I have already advanced ; yet it is hoped that 
all which may be said will contribute something to the ac- 
complishment of my final object, namely, a fair, and a full 
exposure of those principles which time has rendered so 
sacred that an attempt at their overthrow is viewed by some 
as a desecration ! 

1. A noun is the name, the sign of any person, place, or 
thing of which you can have a notion. 

That is, the part, or word which is the name of any thing 
whatever of which you can have an idea, is a noun. Upon 
this principle what part of the Principiter is not a noun 1 
(And you must bear in mind that the Principiter is a fair 
representative of a verbal sentence.) 

Part, A, points out the cause in a, and the effect in d ; 
hence this conjunction is a noun ! If part, A, directs the 
mind to a cause, is not this part a sign, a name of a cause ? 
And, if it is the sign of a cause, why is it not a noun 1 
Well, if part, A, is a noun because it means cause, or 



ETTTMOLOGY. 87 

because it means effect, what is the conjunction, therefore, 
in the first sentence under the Principiter 1 

1. "John shot bird; therefore bird was shot by John." 
" If too part, A, is a noun because it means a cause, 

what is the conjunction, because, in the second, and the 
conjunction, for, in the third sentence under the Principi- 
ter ? 

2. " Round table stands by square table ; because it does 
stand near to it." 

3. " John did cry out for fear ; for he was before rob- 
bers." 

Will it be said that therefore, because, and for are not 
the signs of any thing ? Why, then, are they used ? Words, 
say the old school grammarians, are articulate sounds used 
by common consent as the signs of our ideas ! Now, if this 
definition is sound, therefore, because, and for are nouns, 
or they are not ivords ! If they are words, they are signs ; 
and if they are signs they are nouns ! Any word which is 
a sign of an idea, is a noun ! But, I ask again, if these 
three words are not the signs of something of which we can 
have a notion, why are they used ? Are they employed to 
fill a chasm in mere sound ? Why, then, use three ? Would 
not one fill this chasm which the absence of all would pro- 
duces ? As well might it be contended that nature has formed 
the eye, the ear, and the nose merely to prevent some de- 
formity which, without these organs, would mar the human 
head ! These words, like these organs, have their distinct 
significant, their separate indicative, their respective naming 
functions. But I must even ask again, why employ there- 
fore, because, and for, if they convey no ideas ; if they are 
not signs of something of which we can have a notion 1 

Why is part, A, in the Principiter, employed ? Is it not 
employed as the means for leading the mind to the cause, 
and to the effect ? But, should you deprive this part of its 
hand, of its naming, of its indicating finger, would it be of 
any service in pointing out either cause, or effect ? Under 
this deprivation of its namitive, its indicative power, how 
could I reply to the following question 1 

" Why is part, A, employed in the Principiter ? Could I 
reply, it is employed to fill a chasm which its absence would 
produce in this frame-work of parts ? The chasm would not 
be in the frame-work, but in the sense of this frame-work ! 
There would be no sign., no name for the cause, and effect 



88 ETYMOLOGY. 

which stand just below ! If part, A, would be useless, and 
worse than useless, when deprived of its namitive power, 
of what use is therefore, because, or for, when shorn of 
all sign power? But I may be told that these words are 
not shorn of all import by the old school grammarians. 
Let us see — they tell us that if a word is the name, the 
sign of any thing whatever of which we can have a notion, 
it is a noun. Now, when they come to parse these three 
words, they call them not nouns, but conjunctions ! And in 
calling these words conjunctions do not the old school 
grammarians affirm that they are destitute of import, with- 
out meaning, void of the namitive, the sign power ! 1 But 
if these words mean nothing their rejection would be an 
accession to our language. If, however, these noun con- 
junctions mean nothing why can not because be substituted 
for therefore, and therefore for because, without changing 
the exact sense 1 

1 . He has money, therefore he is not destitute of money. 

2. He has money, because he is destitute of money ! ! 
But it may be said that these words do point out ideas, 

but, then, they are not the names of ideas. To this I reply 
that the c>ily way in which a word can point out any thing, 
any idea, is by exerting a naming power. To point out a 
thing is to lead the mind to it by using the name, or sign of 
the thing. To name, to designate, is to point out by appro- 
priate signs. " Name your conditions," is a common ex- 
pression ; and is synonymous with " Define, point out, ex- 
press, or signify your conditions. (See Appeal, page 133.) 
What is the difference between the two following defini- 
tions 1 

I . Words are articulate sounds used by common consent 
as the signs of our ideas. 

■2. Words are articulate sounds, used by common consent 
as the names of our ideas. 

II. Part B. — This part is an article. The English phrenod 
has but two words which the old school grammarians call ar- 
ticles; these are a, and the. By affirming that these words are 
articles, they virtually assert that they are not nouns; and, 
by asserting that these words, (a, and the) are not nouns, 
they virtually declare that they mean nothing ! But while 
they assert by withdrawing these words from the noun 
family, that they are not the signs of any thing whatever. 



ETOIOLOGY. 89 

it will be seen, that by their definition of an article, they 
actually bring these words into the noun family : they say, 

" An article is a word placed before substantives to point 
them out, and to shew how far their signification extends." 

Here they tell us that an article does mean something — 
they make it the sign of the extent of the signification of 
nouns ! The words, a, and the, then, are signs of some- 
thing of which we can have a notion. The old school 
grammarians make a, and the the name, the sign by which 
to express the noun's extent in signification. " Hat is the 
name, or sign of the covering of the human head : a, and 
the are the name, or the sign of the extent of signification. 
But, although the old school grammarians are in error in 
their definition of the meaning of a, and the, as found in 
the above definition of an article, yet these words have a 
meaning as much as any other words in the language. 
The is the sign of a designation, and is illustrated in the 
right hand of part B. The large hand, e, is the description, 
or designation of the little fellow with a gun ;- he is marked 
h. The large hand points out, designates this little hunts- 
man ; and part B by means of its right hand leads the 
mind to this designation. Wherever the is used, the mind 
is informed of a preceding, or a succeeding description, 
or designation of the thing mentioned ; as, the Senate of 
Pennsylvania, is now in session. 

The mono, of Pennsylvania, is the large hand. It is the 
designation of this particular Senate ; and the word, the, is 
the sign, the name which expresses the existence of this 
designation. 

Again : " A man came to my house on Monday last, and 
left on the following Wednesday. But whether this gentle- 
man is the man, I cannot now decide." 

The word, the, throws the mind back to the designation 
contained in the first period. 

The word, the, then, is a sign of something — and whoever 
uses it employs it as the sign of some designation which is 
given, or to be given of the object, or thing mentioned. 

The old school grammarians call the a definite article, 
and a an indefinite one. " The is called the definite article 
because it points out some particular person or thing." 

And yet the has no meaning ! If it is not a sign, a 
name, of something how can it be so very exact in its 
work of leading the mind, as to entitle it to the appellation 

9* 



90 ETYMOLOGY. 

of definite ! ? But let us see whether this definite article, 
as they call it, can " point out any particular person or 
thing." " The Senate is in session." But what Senate ? 
Why, the Senate ! ? But what Senate is the Senate ! 1 Does 
Mr. Murray's Definite article give us any light on the 
identity of the Senate intended ! ? This word, the, is surely 
a definite joint indeed ! (Articulus, a joint.) 

Now let us have the designation of which the is the sign, 
of which the is the true name. The Senate of Pennsylvania, 
is in session ! " Of Pennsylvania," then, seems to be the 
definite article by which the Senate is pointed out ! (Ap- 
peal, page 127.) 

Let us now consider the article, a. Part B. illustrates 
the meaning of a by means of the finger which points to 
the absence, the want of the designating hand, e. The 
word, the, then, is the sign, the name of the 'presence of a 
designation ; and the word, a, is the sign, the name of the 
absence, the want, the destitution of every thing like either 
a preceding, or a succeeding designation. " A man called 
at my house on last Monday." 

If you examine the two hands upon part B, you will un- 
derstand the, true significant functions of a, and the. (See 
the Appeal, page 119.) 

III. Part D. — This part is called an adjective. Part D 
is the sign of a quality which belongs to the table marked 
w ; and of a quality which belongs to the table marked i. 
This part also denotes the idea of possession. (Seef) This 
epecon of an adjective, therefore, must be the sign, the name 
of these two qualities — -hence it must be a noun : 

DDF D D X 

My round table stands by your square table. 

If part, D, is a noun, it follows that my, round, your, and 
square are nouns. 

That, the signs of qualities are called names, is obvious 
from the following extract taken from a work written by 
the Rev. Samuel Stanhope Smith, D. D. one of the former 
Presidents of Princeton College. 

" The failure of the Magicians evinces their total destitu- 
tion of any kind of supernatural power, magical, or dia- 
bolical, or by whatever name it may be called." 

Here the adjectives, magical, and diabolical are denomi- 



ETYMOLOGY. 01 

nated names of the kind, or quality of this power. If ad- 
jectives are names, are they not nouns ] 
Of Part F I have said something already. 

V. Parts H, and O. 

These parts are called verbs. These parts are the signs 
of being, or state of being, and of action. The old school 
grammarians say that, 

" A verb is a word which signifies, being, action, or a 
state of being." 

Here they say that a verb signifies. How can a word 
signify unless it is a sign, a name — and if a sign, a name, 
is it not a noun ? 

The first hand is the sign of being, I ; the second of ac- 
tion, m ; and the third of a state, n. 

1. The cut, marked, I, has a being as a circle. This 
being is found at the place of contact, and to this being 
part PI directs the mind through the medium of its first hand. 

That actions do have names is admitted by all. in 
speaking upon the division of words into parts of speech, 
Mr. Webster says, 

" The distinctions between the names of substances, and 
the names of their actions, or motions" 

Shall it be said that part, F, is a noun because if is the 
name of the substance which acts ; but that part, H, which 
is as distinctly the sign of the action of this substance as is 
F the sign of this substance itself, is not a noun because it 
is not the sign of any thing of which we can have a 
notion ? Can we not have an idea of an action ? (See the 
Appeal, page 206.) 

VI. Part P. — The figure marked o, is the sign of the 
manner, time, place, &c. of which the adverb is the sign, 
or name. He went quickly. 

VII. Part R. — Part R, is the sign, or name of some sud- 
den emotion of fear, &c. and of course is as much a name 
as 'is Part F. 

VIII. Part Q,. — This part is a preposition. But you see 
thatit is as much the sign, or name of the cause, p, the place, 
q, the place, r, s, and t, as is part X the sign, or name of 
the bird, u, the man, v, or the table, iv. 

In the preceding observations I have attempted to shew 
that all words by virtue of the old definition of a noun, are 
nouns. Let us consider the first Principiter to be the en- 



92 ETYMOLOGY. 

tire English phrenod, and the various cuts which fall imme- 
diately under it, to be the world of ideas for the expression 
of which this epeconical language has been formed. By 
means of this hypothesis, you will actually see what the 
English language is in reference to ideas : you will see that 
each word in the entire phrenod, is the sign of some idea. 
If you see this, you must be able (and I trust willing) to see 
that the following definition makes all words nouns : 

" A noun is the name of any thing which exists, or of 
any thing of which you can have a notion !" " The name 
of any thing which you can smell, taste, hear, see, or 
conceive of, is a noun /" 

Is there any part of this Principiter, which is not the sign 
of something ? Then, there is no part, no word, in the En- 
glish language, which is not the sign, the name of some- 
thing. (For the Principiter is a true epecon, a true image of 
the language.) 

Let us now turn to the third Principiter, and see what 
the old school grammarians do when they come to parse 
the language. In their definition of a noun, they give every 
word a signification — they leave each part in full posses- 
sion of its namitive hand, its indicating finger. But, when 
they come to parse they strip every part, every word, ex- 
cept F, and X, of its indicating, of its naming hand ! Hence 
w T e find all the ideas in the whole world of thoughts to lie 
w/i-pointed out, unnamed, but the six which are named by 
the signs, F, and X! Thus if you compare, or rather con- 
trast, the state of the first Principiter with the shorn condi- 
tion of the third, you will have a fair specimen of the 
deformity, and destruction which inconsistency between 
theory, and practice, must ever produce in art, and science. 

It is curious to see the course which the formers of the 
old system of grammar, have taken in order to appear to 
be consistent. In their definition of a noun, they affect to 
think that all words are not signs, not names ! They start 
out with the position that there are ten parts of speech. 
And then they construct their definition of a noun in such 
a way as implies that there is but one class of words which 
are signs of ideas. 

" Words are articulate sounds used by common consent 
as the signs, the names of our ideas." 

" There are ten, or nine parts of speech in English, 



ETYMOLOGY. 93 

namely, noun, article, verb, adjective, conjunction, prepa- 
sition, adverb, participle, pronoun, and interjection.'''' 

1. " Any word which is the sign of an idea, is a noun ; 
as, man, virtue, vice." 

But, says the objector, this is not the exact phraseology 
of the old definition of a noun. I quote the sense, not the 
words. The old school grammarians having defined all 
words as being signs, they select a certain class which they 
define by substituting name for sign ! And it is really 
amusing to observe the great pains which they have taken 
to avoid the use of both sign, and name, in defining the 
other classes of words ! In defining the article, they do not 
say in so many words, that an article is the name of the 
extent of a noun's application. But, instead of saying that 
an article is the name of the noun's extent of signification 
by the direct use of the word, name, they say it in the fol- 
lowing way : 

" An article is a word placed before nouns to point them 
out, and shew how far their signification extends /" 

To shew the extent ! That is, to name, to signify, to ex- 
press the noun's extent of application, by being the sign, or 
name of this extent ! There is no other way in which an 
article can shew a noun's extent of application. 

2. In defining the conjunction, they use the following 
phraseology : 

" A conjunction is a part of speech that is chiefly used 
to connect sentences." 

But in what way does a conjunction connect sentences ? 
Why, by expressing, by signifying, by pointing out that 
which produces the connection. That which produces 
the connection between sentences, may be the cause, the 
effect, the opposition, the similarity &c. &c, which exist 
in any certain cases. For instance : " It was a cold day, 
therefore I remained in the house." 

. My remaining within is an effect of which the conjunction, 
therefore, is the sign, or name. 

"Again: " He came home, because he wished to see his 
friends." 

His wish to see his friends was the cause of his coming 
home ; and, of this cause the conjunction, because, is the 
name, or sign. I do not mean to be understood as saying 
that because is, the name of wishing as an action, but as a 
cause. The word, wished, is the name of this event of the 



94 ETYMOLOGY. 

mind, as an action. But this action has a causative relation, 
or connection with the action of returning ; and because is 
the name, the sign, of this causative connection. Let us, 
then, say that, 

A conjunction is the sign, or name of those relative 
circumstances which produce a connection between sen- 
tences ; as, John is good, therefore he is happy. But his 
brother is unhappy, because he is bad." 

3. They tell us that an adjective is a part of speech 
which expresses some quality of a noun ; as, Red cloth, 
Blue eyes, Great minds. 

But why not say at once that, 

An adjective is the name of the quality of a noun ; as, 
Round table, Square timber 1 

But they choose to say that an adjective is a part of 
speech which expresses some quality ! How can a word 
express a quality unless it is the name, or sign of quality ! ? 

4. "A verb is a word which signifies being, action, or 
suffering ; as, I am, I walk, my head aches. 

Why not say at once, 

A verb is the name of being, action, or suffering 1 Be- 
cause this way of expressing the idea, would lay the axe at 
the very root of their definition of a noun. A noun is the 
name. No other signs are to be called names ! ! To avoid 
the use of " name," they choose to say that a verb signifies 
by being a name ! 

5. "An adverb is a word joined to verbs, adjectives, 
participles, and to other adverbs to express some quality, or 
circumstance respecting it." 

To express some quality. That is, to express some quality 
by being the sign, or name of it ! Why not say, then, that, 

An adverb is the name of some quality, or circumstance 
of the verb, adjective, participle, or adverb 1 (This question 
has been already answered.) 

6. "A preposition serves to connect words with one 
another, and to shew a relation between them." 

What I have said upon the conjunction, is applicable to 
the preposition also. 

A preposition is the name of those relative circumstances 
which connect one word with another. 

7. "A pronoun is a word which is used to avoid the too 
frequent repetition of a noun." 

A pronoun is a secondary name, and is used to prevent 



ETYMOLOGY. 95 

the too frequent repetition of a noun, the 'primary name , 
as, Jane lost the book, and Charles found it. (Book, the 
primary, and it the secondary name.) 

8. An interjection is the name of some sudden emotion 
of joy, fear, dislike, &c. 

I have thus demonstrated that each class of words can 
he defined by the use of name. Having done this, I would 
remark that I believe that the definitions in which I have 
used the word, name, are just as unsound in principle, as 
are those from which the old school grammarians have 
carefully excluded this word. In the above definitions, 1 
have built upon the principles on which the old school 
authors have ; and the unsoundness of them, I have attempted 
to expose in the Appeal. Let me now attempt to define 
these several classes of words upon sound principles. In 
this attempt I must reject the ideas which the words express 

In defining these classes, I shall employ the second Prin- 
cipiter. And, from the fact that the various objects which 
are under the first Principiter, and which represent the 
world of things, or the universe of ideas, are all removed 
from this Principiter, you will readily perceive that in this 
work of defining, I shall not attempt to say what nouns 
mean, and what relative characters things sustain. The 
dictionary import of words, I shall leave for the lexicogra- 
pher ; and the relative character of things, I shall leave in 
the hands of the metaphysician ! Before I commence, how- 
ever, I wish you to contrast the first, with the second Prin- 
cipiter. In the first, you find Mr. Murray most minutely 
inspecting the world of things through a medium which, for 
the sake of a name, I shall call a grammascope. You find 
this distinguished philologist in the triple capacity of meta- 
physician, lexicographer, and grammarian ! No, I am 
wrong ! you do not find him in the character of a gramma- 
rian — I have been betrayed into this mistake from his sole 
ostensible pretension that he is forming a system of gram- 
mar for the developement of the syntax principles of the 
English pnrenod ! Do you not see him following the import 
of the different parts of the Principiter, to the various 
things, facts, and circumstances on which these imports 
fix ? You do not see this father of the present popular sys- 
tem, nor any of his followers who have so shamefully 
deformed this popular pet, with even half an eye upon the 
constructive character of this epeconical sentence — not one 



96 ETYMOLOGY. 

of the thousands that have pretended to narrate the con- 
structive principles only, has thrown even a glance at 
them ! The signification of words, — and the relative cha- 
racter of things on which these significations fix, constitute 
the theme of the old school grammarians, and form the 
very soul, and body of their system. 

In the second Principiter you not only do not find Mr. 
Murray, but you do not find any of his simplifiers ! Y ou 
find the world of things removed, so that no direct use can 
be made of the meaning, of the dictionary import, of the 
epeconical words. You find also him who is forming the new 
system examining, not these things, for these are banished 
(for the crime of having betrayed Murray into fatal error,) not 
the significations, the namitive fingers, for these have be- 
come inoperative from the removal of the things, but you 
find him carefully inspecting the entire frame-work of the 
Principiter, to ascertain its exact, and full constructive cha- 
racter. This character 1 shall soon attempt to give as the 
basis of the definitions which I intend to submit as substi- 
tutes for those which the old school grammarians have 
founded upon the Dictionary, the namitive character, of 
words, and the relative, metaphysical, character of things. 
But, before I attempt to divide the parts of a gnomod into 
classes upon the frame-work principles of the Principiter, 
it may be proper to remark that the three woids on the 
left of the second Principiter, are the three technical names 
of the three syntax principles upon which I intend to found 
these remedial definitions. These principles are explained 
under page 69. Under that part of Syntax, which is called 
epoage, the words of a sentence like the component parts 
of the -Principiter, are divided into cormes, and clades. 
{trunks, and branches.) (Examine the names which are 
placed over the different parts of the Principiter: the ones 
in range with the word, epoage.) 

Under that part of Syntax, which is denominated senteolo- 
gy, the clades of a sentence like the clades of the Principiter, 
are subdivided into gviomaclades, and agnomaclades ; and 
the cormes, into jjoe-cormes, and nepoe-coimes. 

(The hyphens, -, -, indicate what words are united in 
making the subdivisions.) 

I. I will now give the epoage of the Principiter. 

A, a clade. 

B, a clade. 



ETYMOLOGY. 97 

D, a clade. 
F. a corme. 
H, a clade. 
O, a clade. 
P, a clade. 
Q, a clade. 
X, a corme. 
R, a corme. 
II. I will now give the Senteology with the epoage. 

A, an agnoma-cl&de. 

B, an agnoma-clside. 
D, an o^raoma-clade. 
F, a poe-corme. 

H, a gnoma-cl&de. 

O, a gnoma-cla,de. 

P, an agvioma-clade. 

Q, an agTtoma-clade. 

X, a nepoe-corme. 

R, a nepoe-corme. 

III. Let me in the next place give the Syncladeology 
of the Principiter with the Epoage, and Senteology of it. 
Before I attempt this, however, it may be well to remind you 
that Syncladeology is confined to clades. 

It may be proper to remark also that in order to be able to 
recognise the epoage, senteology, and syncladeology of any 
agnomacl&de in one word, I have resorted to syncopation. 
(Syncopation, the process of shortening, or contracting words, 
by cutting off a portion in the middle.) Instead, then, of 
using Monoagnoina-clade, in recognising the three princi- 
ples, (epoage, senteology, and syncladeology,) upon which 
part, A, is classed, I employ Monoclade. -Mb/io-agnoma- 
clade, and Monoclade are made synonymous by the doc- 
trine of syncopation. 

A, a Mono~cla.de. (Monoagviomaclade.) 

B. a meta -clade. # (Metaagn0macl3.de.) 
D, a me£a-clade. (MetaagTiomaclade.) 
H, a poecorme gnomaclade. 

O, a dicorme gnomaclade. 

P, a cZo/io-clade. (Clonoagvicwiaclade.) 

Q, a stero-clade.f (Steroagnomaclade.) 

* Meta-cor?rce-clade : contracted to raetaclade by syncopation. (See English 
Syntascope, page 125.) 

(■ Contracted by syncopation from stero-nepoecorme-clade. The first act in 

10 



98 ETYMOLOGY. 

I. The EPOAGE of the principiter. 

The epoage of the Principiter, is that part of its syntax 
character, which respects the mere frame -work rank of its 
relative parts. The parts of the principiter are divided 
upon the principle of their frame-work rank, into two orders, 
namely, cormes, and clades. 

1. A corme is a foundation part ; as, F, X, R. 

2. A clade is a part which bears a branch relation to the 
corme, or to some other clade, or to some entire mono 
of cormes, and clades; as, D, B, A. 

[I. The senteology of the principiter. 

The senteology of the Principiter, is that part of its 
syntax character, which respects the capacity, or the want 
of a capacity to aid in the production of a sentence charac- 
ter, as, F, H, Q, X. 

The cormes of the Principiter are divided under sente- 
ology, into _poecormes, and rcepoecormes ; and the clades 
into gTzomaciades, and ag?iomaclades. 

1 . The poecorme is a corme which by means of its sen- 
tence- forming springs, constructs the sentential elements of 
the gnomaclade into a sentence character ; as, F. 

2. The nepoecovme is a corme which does not render 
any aid in the production of the sentence character ; as, 
X, R. 

The clades. 

1 . The g-nomaclade is a clade which is capable of being 
formed into a sentence, or gnomod ; as, H, O. (See En- 
glish Syntascope, page 11, and so on.) 

O is a g?io?nacldide, but Q is an agno?nac\side. Can you 
see any senieological difference between these two clades 1 
Has either the capacity to be made into a sentence, a gno- 
mod ? Do you see upon plate, c, the five cordictions, the 
five characteristics, of a sentence, a gnomod? In the watch 
you have affirmation, in the interrogative mark, you have 
interrogation, in the crown, you have command, in the 
posture of the figure under the crown, you have petition, 
and in the time-piece under the petitionative cordiction, 

syncopation cuts off agnoma, which leaves steroncpoecormeclade : the second 
rejects nepoecorme, which leaves steroclade. Steroclade signifies an agnoma- 
clade which is confined in frame-work dependence to the nepoecorme. (Scg 
English Syntascope, page 125, 126.) 



ETYMOLOGY. 99 

you have subfirmation. (See English Syntascope, page 
11, and so on.) 

I fancy that I hear you reply that, "the senteological 
difference between O, and Q, is that, O has the gnomodic 
elements, but Q has not" And, to this you seem to add 
that " these gnomodic elements may be formed into senten- 
ces, but that the clade itself (O) can not" 

These very gnomodic elements are parts of clade O : 
these elements are not to be abstracted from the clade to 
which they belong, and of which they are an essential part. 
These cordictive materials are not to be considered by 
themselves. As it takes the soul, and the body to make a 
human being, so it requires the gnomodic elements to con- 
stitute the clade marked O. (See English Syntax, page 

41 -) 

2. An agnomacl&de is a clade which is incapable of being 
formed into a gnomod ; as, A, B, C, D, P, Q. 

Let me now invite you to a closer examination of that 
part of the Syntax character of the Principiter, which is 
denominated senteology. You will find the senteology of 
cormes well delineated in the poecorme springs of part, F, 
and in the want of these springs in part X, and part R. 
In the gnomodic elements of part H, and part O, and in the 
toant of these elements in part A, B, D, P, and Q, you will 
find the senteology of clades clearly presented. (See En- 
glish Syntascope, page 118, and particularly page, 
184.) 

III. The Syncladeology of the Principiter. 

The syncladeology of the Principiter, is that part of its 
syntax character, which respects the principle of classing, 
and naming the clades of the Principiter after those parts 
with which they hold a frame- work relation. 

Under syncladeology the gnomaclades of the Principiter, 
are divided into, 

1. Poecorme gnomaclades, 

2. Nepoecorme gnomaclades, and 

3. Dicorme gnomaclades. 
And the agnomaclades are divided into 

1. Monoclades, 

2. 3Ietac\ades, 

3. $teroclades, and 

4. CZonoclades. 



100 ETYMOLOGY. 

1. A poecorme gnomaclade is one which holds a frame- 
work relation with the poecorme only ; as, H. (Seepage 
72.) 

2. The nepoecorme gnomaclade is one which holds a 
frame-work connection with the nepoecorme only ; as, O, 
in the third Principiter. (See page 72.) 

3. The dicorme gnomoclade is one which holds a frame- 
work connection with both kinds of cormes ; as, O, in the 
second Principiter. (Seepage 72.) 

1. A monoclade is an agnomaclade which holds a. frame- 
work connection with an entire mono ; as, A. (See page 
73.) 

2. A me£aclade is an agnomaclade which may hold by 
alternation a frame-ivork connection with the poecorme, 
and with the nepoecorme ; as, D. (See page 73.) 

If you will examine the shape, and size of the tenon of 
part D, you will see that this part may be removed from F, 
the poecorme, to part X, the nepoecorme. The tenon of 
D suits the middle mortise of X, as well as it fits the mor- 
tise in F before which part D now stands. 

3. A steroclade is an agnomaclade which is confined in 
its frame- work relation to the nepoecorme ; as, Q. (See 
page 73.) 

If you examine the tenon of part Q, you will find in what 
its stero (fixed) character consists. The form, and size 
of the tenon of this ster0cl3.de confine this part to the nepoe- 
corme, X. 

4. A CZo?2oclade is an agnomaclade which holds a frame- 
work relation, not with a corme* but with some clade ; 
as, P. 

REMARKS. 

Let us now see what is the syntax characteristic of that 
part of speech which the old school grammarians call a 
conjunction, but which the new school denominate a Mono- 
clade. The part of speech characteristic of a conjunction, 
is its frame-work relation to an entire mono. The conjunc- 
tion is not distinguished from the preposition by any differ- 
ence in the ideas which the two express. The conjunction 
may denote cause, and so may the preposition ; as, " He 
trembled for fear, for he had been frightened." 

Will it be pretended that the first for does not connect as 



ETYMOLOGY. 101 

much as the second ? Let us omit both, and see which is 
the greater as a connector. 

1. He trembled fear : for he had been frightened. 

2. He trembled for fear : he had been frightened. 

Both fors denote cause ; both connect, although the first 
is much more necessary to keep up the connection of the 
proposition than is the second ! Yet, the first is called a pre- 
position, and the second, a conjunction ! But let us now ask 
wherein do these two fors differ in their syntax relation? 
The first is conjected to an individual word, fear ; and the 
second to an entire assemblage, to an entire mono of 
words: lie had been frightened. This is the difference. 
Nor is this difference peculiar to the conjunction, and the 
preposition : there is the same difference between the con- 
junction, and the article. The article has the capacity to 
be conjected, not to a mono of words, but to an individual 
word ; as, The man saw a child. 

Nor does the conjunction stand distinguished less from 
the verb by the capacity in the former to be conjected only 
to an entire mono, and the capacity in the latter to be con- 
jected only to individual words. Every clade, except the 
conjunction, has the capacity to hold a frame-work connec- 
tion with an individual part. Not only so, but no clade, 
except the conjunction, has the capacity to hold a frame- 
work connection with an entire mono. In this particular, 
then, is to be found the distinguishing syntax difference be- 
tween the conjunction, and all the other parts of speech 
which I call clades. See this difference through the medium 
of the first Principiter. The parts which follow part B, 
are taken as one group, as an entire mono, as a portion 
which can be analyzed by itself. And part, B, by means 
of its brace, holds a frame-work connection with the entire 
mono, or monos assemblage. If you contrast the brace 
of A with the tenon of every other clade, you will see dis- 
tinctly the important syntax trait which distinguishes the 
conjunction from verbs, articles, adverbs, prepositions, and 
adjectives. The tenon of B gives B a capacity to be con- 
jected to F, an individual part. But B has no brace ; hence 
it has no capacity to hold a frame-work connection with an 
assemblage, with an entire mono. This remark applies 
with as much force to D, H, O, P, and Q, as it does to B. 

In the old system the word, and, is called a conjunction 
because it connects ; in the new this word is denominated 

10* 



102 ETYMOLOGY. 

a monoclade because it is always corrected to a mono. If 
words are called conjunctions because they connect, the 
verb is as much entitled to be called a conjunction as any 
class of words in the language. Let. this be demonstrated 
by omitting the verbs in the following instances : 

1 . John eats apples ! 

2. John apples ! 

3. John laughs at his sister. 

4. John at his sister ! 

5. John resembles me. 

6. John me! 

7. He was taught by that teacher. 

8. He by that teacher ! 

I would now refer you to the discussion of the Preposition, 
and conjunction, in the Appeal in which an attempt is made 
to shew that upon the principle of connecting, every part 
of speech in the entire phrenod, is as much a conjunction 
as is the one to which the old school grammarians apply 
this appellation. Chapter XIX., page 280. 

Does the reader say that neither and, nor any other con- 
junction can be monoclade where it connects two verbs, two 
nouns. <fyc. ? My reply is that there is no conjunction in 
the English language, which connects two nouns, or two 
verbs, or two adjectives : conjunctions never connect one 
word with another word ! Let us take and in the fourth 
gnomod under the Principiter. 

" 4. The horse, and saddle were injured." 

The old school grammarians parse and as a conjunction, 
connecting horse, and saddle. The very import of and 
stands directly opposed to this disposition of the word. This 
conjunction, or as I call it, monoclade, means add. It is 
equal in import, to the verb, add, in the imperative mode. 
The reader, or hearer, then understands from and that he 
is to add something. Now, there can be nothing added 
where there is not something already presented to which an 
addition may be made. In the sentence which I have just 
quoted from the Principiter, the horse is mentioned first — 
the horse being introduced, the word, and, is employed as a 
sign of some addition. And the question is, what it is 
which is to be added ? Is the real saddle to be added to 
the real horse ? This adjection would certainly produce no 



ETY310L0GY. 103 

very strange appearance. But just think what a very dif- 
ferent figure this work of adjection would make, if the sad- 
dle should be mentioned before the horse : the saddle, and 
horse were injured ! Here we find, not the saddle put upon 
the horse, but the horse upon the saddle ! This theory 
works so ill in practice, that I believe even Mr. Murray 
himself would disown it ! Let us, then, enquire whether it 
is the word, saddle, which is to be added to the word, horse ? 
Upon this principle, the thing injured was not the saddle, 
but the word, saddle ! 

" The horse, and saddle were injured." 

But, why add the word, saddle, to the word, horse? 
" Why, that the noun, saddle, may meet with the same fate 
which the word, horse, suffers." 

This would be plausible logic if the ivord, horse, was in- 
jured — but as not one hair of the noun, horse, is injured, I 
do not see the propriety of binding by means of this verbal 
girth, and, the noun, saddle, to the noun, horse, in order to 
procure some injury to the noun, saddle ! What, connect the 
signs in order to effect the things signified ! ? This sort of 
philosophy would imprison the "portrait to punish the crimi- 
nal whom it represents ! ! No, no — let us reject this chaff, 
and resort to the kernel. 

" The horse, and saddle were injured." 

That is, the horse was injured ; and the saddle was in- 
jured. In other words, the horse was injured, add that the 
saddle was also injured. The author of the sentence first 
asserts in an implenary mono, that the horse was injured. 
Having done this in an elliptical mono, he says, add to the 
fact that the horse was injured the fact that the saddle was 
also injured. The mono which and introduces is that which 
follows and, as may be seen by rendering both monos full: 

[The horse was injured] ; and (the saddle was injured.) 

And, then, is a monocl&de, and is used to introduce an 
additional mono into the sentence. 

But I may be told that the introduction of this new mono 
produces an error in the number of the verb, were. For the 
discussion of this point, I would refer the reader to the Ap- 
peal, Chapter XIV, page 218, where I attempt to shew the 
unsoundness of the Rule, the verb agrees with its nomina- 
tive case in number, and person. 

Prepositions, and conjunctions originally constituted but 



104 ETYMOLOGY. 

one part of speech, and were parsed under the name of conjunc- 
tion. This fact indicates that the old school grammarians un- 
derstood little of the true syntax character of these two classes 
of words. There was as much reason for including the adjec- 
tive, and conjunction in one class as there was for embracing 
the preposition, and conjunction in one ! And, was it not that 
the verb has gnomodic, sentential, power, there would have 
been just as good ground for including the conjunction, and 
verb in the same class, as there was for the embracing of 
the preposition, and conjunction in the same ! The gnoma- 
clade, the verb, stands distinguished, then, from every agno- 
maclade, whether article, adjective, adverb, preposition, or 
conjunction, by its capacity to be formed into a gnomod. 
And, consequently, every agnomaclade stands distinguished 
from the gnomacladc by a want, a destitution, of this capa- 
city. The gnomaciado is sentenceable : the agnoma clacte 
is not. 

As the old school grammarians originally included the 
conjunctions and prepositions in one family, and parsed 
them under the name of conjunction, it may be well enough 
to enquire in what these two classes of words agree. These 
two classes are alike in this : both are agnoma. That is, 
both are incapable of being formed into a gnomod. In otner 
words, both classes are destitute of gnomodic power. There 
is no conjunction, nor is there any preposition, which can 
be formed into a gnomod, a sentence, by the poecorme. 
This may be seen from the following experiments : 

1. He of. (No cordiction.) 

2. Ye than. (No cordiction.) 

Of, and than, then, agree in this, namely, neither has the 
gnomodic power. In other words, both are destitute of the 
gnomodic, the cordictive, capacity. 

How very different are these two classes of words from 
the gnomacludes ? 

1. He is. (A cordiction.) 

2. Ye are. (A cordiction.) 

Is, and are are gTiomaclades ; but of, and than are agnoma- 
clades. 

Let us now see whether conjunctions, and prepositions 
stand distinguished from the article, the adjective, and the 
adverb by a want, a destitution, of a capacity to be formed 
into a gnomod by the poecorme. 



ETYMOLOGY. 105 

1. He a. (No cordiction.) 

2. He the. (No cordiction.) 

3. He old. (No cordiction.) 

4. He where. (No cordiction.) 

5. There he. (No cordiction.) 

Now, as the only syntax analogy between the conjunction, 
and the preposition, lies in the ?tfcm£ of the gnomodic, the 
cordictive power, is it not clear that the article, the adjective, 
and the adverb could have been included with the conjunc- 
tion with as much propriety as was the preposition ? 

Under senteology, these five parts of speech are brought 
into one class : they constitute the great family of Agnoma- 
clades. But, while their senteological features bring them 
into the same group, the same verbal community, their 
syn-cla-de-o-log-ic-al traits of character, subdivide them 
into five classes ; namely, 

1. ilforaoclades, (conjunctions.) 

2. Metacladcs, (articles, and adjectives.) 

3. Sterocladcs, (Prepositions.) 

4. CZorcoclades, (adverbs.) 

2. I have already shewn what it is which distinguishes 
these five classes from the verb ; and I have also shewn 
what it is which distinguishes the conjunction from the 
other four classes. I have said that that syntax property 
by which the conjunction stands distinguished from the 
article, adjective, adverb, and preposition, is its capacity 
to introduce an entire mono of words ; its capacity to stand 
conjected to an entire mono of words. And in reference to 
this frame-work capacity, I have denominated the conjunc- 
tion, a monoclade. A band is called a hat-lmnd because 
it is attached to a hat : a clade is called a monoclade 
because it is attached to a mono. (For a mono, see English 
Syntascope, p. 28, and 217.) 

II. ARTICLE, ADJECTIVE, AND PREPOSITION. 

Having disposed of the conjunction, let me devote a few 
moments to the article, the adjective, and the preposition. 
These three parts of speech are distinguished from the con- 
junction by what I may denominate an individual frame- 
work capacity. They are destitute of all ability to be 
conjected to a mono. But, while they are destitute of the 
power to be attached to a mono, they have the capacity to be 



106 ETYMOLOGY. 

applied to individual words. Thus much for the feature 
which throws these three parts of speech out of the mono- 
clade family. Let us now see wherein the article and adjec- 
tive differ from the preposition. The preposition has the 
capacity to hold a frame-work connection with individual 
words ; the article, and adjective have the same frame- 
work power. The article, and the adjective have the 
ability to be conjected to cormes: the preposition has the 
same power. 

1. The men. (Article.) 

2. Good men. (Adjective.) 

3. Of men. (Preposition.) 

Although these three classes agree in each particular 
which I have named, yet there is one particular in which 
they differ. The preposition is a nepoecorme agnoma- 
clade : the article, and the adjective are both poecorme, 
and nepoecorme agnomaclades : the article, as well as the 
adjective is a metaclade. The preposition is a sfcroclade. 

poe. nepoe. 

1. The men saw the book. 

2. Good men do good deeds. 

3. He went with them. 

He that attempts to found a syntax distinction, a part of 
speech difference, between the article, and the adjective, 
undertakes a task which he can not accomplish. The part 
of speech characteristic of the article, is the part of speech 
trait of the adjective ! Both are clades, and not cormes : 
both are ag7iomaclades, and not gnomaclades ; both are 
wetaclades, and not steroclades. 

III. THE ADVEKB. 

The adverb differs from the verb in this — the verb has 
gnomodic power ; the adverb has not. The poecorme can 
make the verb into a cordiction, a gnomod, a sentence ; but 
the poecorme can not make the adverb into a gnomod. The 
verb, then, is called a g?io?naclade ; the adverb an agnoma- 
clade. 

But wherein does the adverb differ from the article, the 
adjective, the conjunction, and the preposition ? In sen- 
teology all agree : all are agnomaclades . In syncladeology, 
however, the adverb differs from every other agnomaclade. 



ETYMOLOGY. 107 

The conjunction is connected to a mono of words only ■ 
the adverb is never conjected to a mono. The article, 
adjective, and preposition are always conjected to cormes : 
the adverb is never conjected to cormes. The adverb is 
conjected to clades only. Therefore it is called a clono- 
clade. That is, a clade of a clade : a branch of a branch. 

1. He went sooti. 

2. Remarkably fine fruit. 

3. Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. 

He that desires to see more upon the adverb, may be 
gratified by examining this subject in the Afpeal, page 
276. But unless I greatly overate what is here advanced, 
every reader of this little volume, will find no occasion for 
any additional arguments to convince him of the unsound- 
ness of the old system of English grammar, and of the 
soundness of the new. Nor can I believe that he will re- 
quire much time to enable him to decide upon the comparative 
simplicity of the two systems. That the old can not be 
understood by children, is admitted by all. And that it 
can not be sustained even by its own authors, is too true to 
afford them ground for much exultation ! True, the teacher 
who permits himself to grow ill natured from seeing his fa- 
vourite Grammar demonstrated to be a compilation of error, 
absurdity, and contradiction, will be very likely to say that 
" true as the new system is, children can never understand 
it !" Admitting it to be so ; and, what then ? Is it better for 
children to learn error, absurdity, and contradiction than 
to learn truth which they cannot clearly comprehend in 
childhood!? Is it better for a child to be taught that five, 
and jive are one hundred because while a mere child he can 
not understand that^ye, and five are ten units !? If the old 
system is ivrong, can it from this fact be. understood better 
than a system which is right ? But let us see whether the 
new system is founded upon such very abstruse truth. 
In the inceptive stage of the system, the words of a sentence 
are divided into cormes, and clades. This division is made 
upon the trunk relation of some words, and the branch re- 
lation of others. 

clade, cormc. clade. clade. 

"That tree is high." 
The child that can not see that the word, tree, is the 
corme, and that that, is, and high are its clades, would not 
be able to distinguish the corme from the clades, and the 



108 



ETYMOLOGY. 




clades from the corme of the following figure of a tree : 
The child of common 
capacity, would be 
able to see that the 
word, tree, is the trunk, 
the cormos part of this 
cut. He would also 
be able to see that the 
other words in the 
above gnomod, are as 
much clades, or bran- 
ches, as are parts b, c, 
and d, of this figure. 

d c a b 

"Very high trees fell." 
The word, very, is 
a clonocla&e, belong- 
ing to high. Branch, 
d, is a cZoftoclade. A 
cZottoclade, then, is a 
clade which is attached, not to the trunk, to the corme, but 
to another clade as is seen in the connection of clade, d, 
with clade, c, in the frame-work of this gnomod : 

d c a b 

Very high trees fell. 

A band is called a &a£band because it is attached to a 
hat. And a clade is called a clonoclside because it is con- 
jected to a clonos, a clade. [clonos, a clade.] 

Upon the above figure there are two cormeclades, and 
one clonoclade. But, says the vexed teacher who is en- 
deavouring to close the door of the new house because 1 
have torn the foundation from the old one, " although a 
child may be able to comprehend epoage which divides 
words into cormes, and clades ; and to comprehend that 
part of syncladeology, which respects the cionoclade, yet 
senteology is far beyond the reach of all children" 

That is, children can not ascertain, can not decide 
whether a clade can, or can not be made into a sentence by 
the agency of I, he, thou, or any other corme which always 
has the power to form a gnomod from any clade that has 
the capacity to be formed into a gnomod. 

Senteology is properly divided into affirmative, and 
negative. 



ETYMOLOGY. 109 

1. Affirmative senteology is the capacity, the power, to 
aid in the production of a sentence ; as, / did see the lad. 
I did, I see. 

2. Negative senteology is a want, a destitution, of all 
power to aid, in any way whatever, in the production of a 
sentence character ; as, " I did see the lad" The lad. 

Hence to decide the senteology of a word, is to determine 
whether it has, or has not, the power to aid in the produc- 
tion of a sentence character, a cordiction. That is, whether 
it has, or whether it has not, the capacity to aid in producing 
an affirmation, a subfirmation, an interrogation, a command^ 
or a petition. 

And can not a child that is able to study the old system, 
comprehend the doctrine of senteology ? That is, can not 
such a child understand the fact that some words have the 
power to aid in the production of a sentence character, and 
that others have not this aiding power? 

The child that can not understand senteology, can hardly 
comprehend the definition which the old school gramma- 
rians give of a sentence. Senteology respects the sentential 
principles which lie in words even before they are syntaxed, 
before they are put together. If a child can understand the 
thing made, can he not comprehend the materials out of 
which it is made ? As a sentence is the only available as- 
semblage of words in the communication of thoughts, one 
classification of words should be made in direct reference 
to their ability to aid in the production of this assemblage. 
And, in reference to this ability, the new system, divides 
words into sentential, and insentential. True, it does not 
employ these two words in expressing this distinction — but 
the distinction is made upon the very principles which these 
words express. 

A Sentence is a very peculiar assemblage of words, and 
should be well understood by him who attempts to acquire 
a knowledge of grammar. The definition of a sentence is 
a very unsuccessful attempt, as may be seen from an ex- 
amination of the following reflections. 

1. "A sentence is an assemblage of words forming a 
complete sense." 

2. " A verb, and noun united form a sentence." 

3. "A sentence is an assemblage of words making com- 
plete sense, and always contains an agent and a verb." 

11 



ETYMOLOGY. 110 

4. " In philosophical language, a sentence consists of a 
subject and a predicate, connected by an affirmation." 

5. " A sentence is an expression of connected thought." 
To understand the first of the above definitions, one 

should be able to say what its author intends by the phrase, 
" a complete sense" The word " complete" means finished, 
ended, full ! The word, " sense" as used in this definition, 
must mean perception, or apprehension of the mind. It 
seems, then, that a Sentence is an assemblage of words, 
forming a finished, an ended, or a full perception, or ap- 
prehension ; as, John, new book, old wine. 

In calling to an individual by the instrumentality of the 
word, John, the perception produced, is complete ; for he 
has a full, and distinct apprehension that he is addressed : 
hence, this noun is indeed the assemblage of words, which 
forms a sentence !! But it may be said that although the 
individual thus addressed, may have a complete appre- 
hension that he is addressed, yet, as this salutation is a mere 
preparation for some proposition, it is evident that the sense 
is not ended, not finished, consequently, not complete. By 
parity of reasoning, then, the assertion, " John is" is not a 
sentence ; for, as in the case of the address, something more 
may be looked for, so in the instance of this assertion, some- 
thing more must be expected. To the first we may affix 
this: John, come here. To the second we may subjoin this : 
John is sick unto death. 

Upon this principle, the assertion, I" saw those red, is not 
a sentence, because I do not say those red what ! But the sub- 
junction of the things seen, renders this assertion a sentence; 
as, I saw those red apples ! 

So too the affirmation, "Jane teas punished," is not a 
sentence, because the writer does not subjoin by whom she 
was punished ! 

2. " A verb and a noun form a sentence." Or, 

"Any finite verb with its nominative case forms a sen- 
tence ;" as, John is. 

This definition does not tell what a sentence is ; it speci- 
fies what parts of speech compose one ! To mention the 
material of which a table may be made, is not telling what 
a table is ! 

"Any finite verb with its nominative case forms a sen- 
tence ;" as, If he is there. 

He, and is are the materials out of which Mr. Murray 



ETYMOLOGY. Ill 

makes a sentence — yet as the sense is not complete, the 
following definition by Mr. Kirkham, seems strongly to 
question Mr. Murray's ability to form a sentence out of so 
few materials : 

"A sentence is an assemblage of words, forming a com- 
plete sense !" 

That is, in order to form a sentence, you must add word 
to word, subjoin phrase to phrase, and annex clause to 
clause till all the connected, or relative parts of the same 
topic, are crowded into one undivided mass of words ! ! 

3. "A sentence is an assemblage of words making com- 
plete sense, and always containing an agent and a verb ;" 
as, / have been punished ! 

As Mr. Davenport has given no example in illustration 
of this definition, we have taken the liberty of supplying 
this very obvious deficiency. But I fear that the one I 
have given him is not so well adapted to his views as he 
may wish. And I must admit that as the assemblage of 
words which I have employed contains no agent, it seems 
not a very happy choice ! 

The next definition which I shall repeat, is from the pen 
of Noah Webster — 

"In philosophical language, a sentence consists of a sub- 
ject and a predicate, connected by an affirmation. Thus, 
God is omnipotent." 

According to this definition, every sentence comprises an 
affirmation ! Therefore, the following assemblages of 
words are not sentences : 

1 . Is God omnipotent 1 

2. Did Saul persecute the Christians ? 

3. John, put your book on the table. 

4. Joseph, will you bring some water? 

5. Is your family all well ? 

" How the rule vanishes before the test !" 

6. "A sentence is the expression of connected thought." 
Although this definition is laughable, it is as correct as 

any of the old ones. " Ripe Apples" is a phrase which ex- 
presses connected, and regularly connected thought; yet this 
phrase, except by the authority of Mr, Kirkham, is not a 
sentence ! 

A gnomod, or sentence. 
A gnomod, or sentence, is an assemblage of two, or 
more words, which expresses a cordiction : as, 



112 ETYMOLOGY. 

1. It is nine. 

2. If it is nine. 

3. Is it nine 1 

4. Go thou to school. 

5. Forgive thou our sins. 

A gnomod consists of two things ; namely, words, and a 
cordiction ; as, "It is nine." 

1. The words are a frame-work of pointers, each point- 
ing to something on which the cordiction has a near, or a 
remote bearing. 

2. The cordiction is the abstract affirmation, the abstract 
subfirmation, the abstract interrogation, the abstract com- 
mand, or the abstract petition which is expressed in the 
assemblage of words; as, "It is nine, If it is nine, Is it 
nine ? Go thou to school, Forgive us our sins." 

The simple power, and the simple want of the power, to 
aid in the production of a cordiction, the true sentence cha- 
racteristic, the real gnomodic trait by which a sentence can 
be distinguished from any insentensic assemblage of words, 
Is called senteology, In reference to this doctrine cormes 
are divided into po^cormes, and nepoecormes. (Poe a sen- 
tence former, nepoe, one that does not aid in the production 
of a sentence.) 

And clades are divided into gnomacl&des, and agnoma- 
clades. The gnomaclade is the verb which the old system 
defines, not upon its true gnomodic, its true sentential trait 
of syntax character; but upon its dictionary meaning. 
That system defines a verb in reference to the capacity of 
the word to signify being, action, or suffering. But does 
not almost every other part of speech signify being, ac- 
tion, and suffering 1 And does every verb signify being, 
action, or suffering ? What does the noun, existence, signify 
but being ? What does the noun, race, signify but action ? 
And what do the nouns, ache, and pain, signify but suffer- 
ing ? 

1. The existence of all sublunary things, must soon ter- 
minate ! 

2. The race has been run ! 

3. An ache is a continued pain ! 

Again. Do resemble, ought, have, will, shall &c. &c. 
signify being, action, or suffering ? Yet these are verbs ! 

Let me here attempt to enumerate a, few of the ideas of 
which the verb is significant. 



ETYMOLOGY. 113 

A verb is a name, or sign of being, action, state, 

POSSESSION, PROMISE, COMMAND, THREAT, FORETELLING, 
DUTY, POWER, LIBERTY, LIKENESS, POSSIBILITY, DETERMI- 
NATION, CESSATION, OBLIGATION, APPEARANCE, CONTINUA- 
TION, necessity, and DESIRE : 

1. Being : as, I am* 

2. Action ; as, I write* 

3. State ; as, I sit* 

4. Possession ; as, I have a book. 

5. Promise ; as, I will return. 

6. Command ; as, Thou shalt not steal. 

7. Threat ; as, If ye eat, ye shall die. 

8. Foretelling; as, If ye eat, ye will die. 

9. Duty ; as, He ought to be there. 

10. Power ; as, He can be there. 

11. Liberty; as, He may go there. 

12. Likeness ; as, He resembles her. 

13. Possibility ; as, He may be here, and he may not. 
14 Determination ; as, He shall go, or suffer the conse- 
quences. 

15. Cessation ; as, He fasted a day — he stopped. 

16. Obligation ; as, He must return. 

17. Appearance ; as, He seems well. 

18. Continuation ; as, He remained with me. 

19. Desire ; as, He wishes to return. 

20. Necessity ; as, He wants bread, he needs bread. 

Thus I have illustrated twenty distinct ideas of which 
verbs are significant. 

Now, if the above enumeration is correct, and surely it is 
proved from examples, how diminutively does the British 
definition, "being, action, or suffering," appear? — a mere 
mouse labouring to sic allow an ox ! But the limitation of 
the British definition is not its worst fault. The definition 
is designed as a kind of net in which to catch verbs only, 
but -it seems much better adapted to the catching of nouns / 
Verbs can hardly be driven into it : but 'nouns cannot be 
kept out ! Mend it, mend it ! It has been mended with 
every kind of material, with every kind of construction, 
and by all sorts of workmen. Some have tampered with 
it till it would hold Qothing ; others have patched, and 
overlaid it till no eye can discern what it is, or what it con- 
tains — and among: them all, it has lost the life of words, 

11* 



1.14 ETYMOLOGY 

and the comeliness of language. And now, then, let us 
return it to Lowth who first contrived it : let us send it 
back to Europe in the ship of innovation, floating upon 
the tide of time : let her be freighted with gratitude to the 
memory of Murray, and with sorrow for the harm our 
countrymen have done his work ! 

That which distinguishes the verb from every other clade is 
its innate ability to be formed into a sentence, a gnomod. 
Every verb contains the first principles of a sentence cha- 
racter, and every poecorme brings out these principles into 
a full cordiction. The true name for the verb, then, is 
gnomacla&e. This word signifies a clade which is capable 
of being made into a gnomod. To say that a word is a 
verb, is to affirm that it is a word which is the name of 
either being, action, or suffering. But to say that a word 
is a gnomoclade is to assert that it is a word which is capa- 
ble of being formed into a gnomod, a sentence. 

I. A g-nomaclade is a word which has in itself the first 
principles of a sentence character ; as, smites, am, reads. 

II. A poecorme is a word which draws out of the gnoma- 
clade the first principles of a sentence character into a full 
sentence ; as, He smites, / am, She reads. 

Now, every word which is denominated a verb in the old 
system, has the innate sentential principle : no other word has ! 
The fact of a word's being endowed with the first principles 
of a sentence character, is the ear mark, so to speak, which 
distinguishes the verb from every other class of words. 
A verb is a word that has in itself the sentential spirit 
which is drawn out into a full sentence by the poecorme ! 
But it is worthy of remark that the poecorme exerts no 
influence over any gnomacl&de except the first ; as, " I am 
writing." 

Here am contains all the first principles of the sentence 
character of this frame- work of words. The affirmation 
which is the full sentence character, is brought into being 
by the words, I, and am. The word, writing, however, has 
in itself the first principles of a sentence character, as may 
be seen in the following instance — I write, I ivrote. 

Here we have an affirmation, the first principles of which 
lie in write. These first principles are brought out by the 
poecorme, I, and thus made into a full sentence character. 
But why does not I bring out these first principles from 
write in the following instance : " I am writing V 



ETYMOLOGY. 115 

It is the genius of our language so far as the relation of 
the poecorme, and gTiomaclade are concerned, that the poe- 
corme exerts no influence over the second, the third, and 
fourth gnoma clade in the mono. Hence the sentential prin- 
ciples which lie in any one of these gnomacl&des, are not 
brought out into sentence characters ; as, I am writing. 

Now, this sentence character is an affirmation ; one affir- 
mation, not two ! Am contains the first principles of one 
affirmation — and writing those of another. Hence, if the 
poecorme, I, should bring out the sentential principles from 
both gnomacldides, we should have two affirmations, two sen- 
tence characters, where we desire but one ! And, if the 
poecorme should exert & forming influence over each sen- 
tence gnomaclade in the series, the following instance would 
contain no fewer than four distinct affirmations, four distinct 
sentence characters : 

"John shall have been punished" 

Here we have but one affirmation, although there are four 
g7iomaclades. That is, four words which have the cordictive, 
the sentential principles. 

Again — Will John have been punished ? 

Now, will, have, been, and punished, have the cordiction 
principles, the first principles of a sentence character ; but, 
as the poecorme, John, brings these principles from will 
only, we have but one interrogation. Let us now bring out 
the sentential principle from each of the four gnomaclades in 
the preceding sentence : 

John will go. 

1. Will he 1 
They have come. 

2. Have they? 

3. Ishel 

4. Punished he them 1 

The same word must change its form in some instances : 
hence been is changed into is. Not, because the sentential 
principle is not in been : but because we cannot bring been 
into close local connection with any poecorme, without in- 
jury to the music of the expression. But still the interro- 
gation may be drawn, or formed from, been as well as from 
is, or any other form of be ; as, Been he 1 Been he at 
church ? Been you a good boy, John ? 

Enough has been said to show that the Senteology of 
clades can be understood by children with quite as much 



116 ETYMOLOGY. 

ease as the Etymology of the verb can be sustained by the 
old school grammarians ! Let me now turn your attention 
to the Senieology of cormes. Permit me to introduce this 
subject with a few reflections upon the Etymology of this 
class of words as presented under the denomination of nouns, 
and pronouns in the old system. Under Etymology the 
old system attempts to give three cases to nouns, and three 
to pronouns. But, as in English there is no case, it is 
strange indeed that the old school authors should have in- 
troduced three ! 

In some languages there are certain endings, or termina- 
tions which are called case. Those terminations are as 
significant as the words to which they belong ; each point- 
ing out, not only the particular relation, but also the parti- 
cular words between which this relation exists. But, upon 
the nouns in our language, no such endings are to be found. 

It is possible, however, that the caseless condition of a 
few nouns in the Latin, may be resorted to to justify the use 
of case in English ; and to meet this circumstance in ad- 
vance, I shall make a few remarks upon this point. And 
first, if the principles of another language, are to be seized 
as a rule by which to try my position with respect to case 
in English, I shall take the general principles ; and not the 
idiomatic eccentricities of that language. The Latin, so 
far as it respects cases, proceeds on the principle of termi- 
nations. And the fact that, case is applied in some feio 
instances where the noun has no termination, certainly 
never can be taken as authority for deciding the broad 
principle of case in our own language. Were case termi- 
nations in the Latin, a mere deviation from the general 
principles of that language, case would be improperly used 
in its grammatical solution. But, as there are few instances, 
in which there is not a case termination, the general prin- 
ciples of Latin nouns, involve terminations ; hence case is 
strictly applicable to the nouns in that language. 

In English no noun has a case form. The noun in the 
possessive case, is nothing but an adjective, or clade ; as, 
John's hat. And the part which is called the case, ('«) is 
as much an adjective affix, as is ic, al,ine, &c. (See the 
Appeal.) And, among the pronouns, there are only three, 
or four which vary in their form as they pass, and repass 
from the nominative to the objective. 

In every regular language, the cormes, or nouns, as they 



ETYMOLOGY. 117 

have been hitherto denominated, have certain forms, or de- 
flections which are called the cases of this class of words. 

A regular language, however, is very different from ours. 
A regular language is rich in terminations : ours is an 
irregular one, and is lean, poor in grammatical trap- 
pings. The genius of the English language does not afford 
our nouns these happy and significant terminations. And 
as our language is without the terminations, let our Gram- 
mar be without their name. Case is the name of these 
terminations, or forms ; and did the forms pertain to our 
tongue, their name would be a proper part of our Grammar. 
But as it is, to give to youth the term, case, as means to 
find the principles of the English language, is like handing 
a child a phial, bidding him _ fill it with a very particular 
medicine, when but a mere speck of such an article ever 
existed in the whole materia medica ! 

But, in reply, it will be said, that the desideratum is to 
enable the learner to acquire a knowledge of that relation 
which exists between the verb, and those nouns which are 
parsed with it : and because this is effected by the present 
definition, and manner of parsing, the end is completely 
answered. To this it may be replied, that even without any 
fixed definitions, the same knowledge could be acquired. 
But does the possibility of accomplishment without instru- 
ments do away their use ? or does the certainty of success 
with imperfect means, destroy the importance of those that 
are perfect ? If so, because D. can dig with his hands, to 
him a spade is of no use ! 

The pronoun, me, is said to be the objective case of /. 
But case means form, shape, termination. The word, me, 
however, is a distinct, a new, a different word ! Was me 
a mere affix, and placed thus, — Ime, me might then be said 
to be the case of /. 

The only pronouns in our language, which have the 
nominative, and the objective case, are they, thou, he, and 
who. For, they and them may be considered the same 
word in different cases, or forms. Thou, and thee are dif- 
ferent cases of the same word. He, and him are different 
forms, or cases of the same word. Who, and whom are 
different cases of the same word. 

But she, and her are two different words. We and vs 
are different words ; and not different cases, or forms of the 
same word. 



118 ETYMOLOGY. 

The pronouns, which, it, you, what, as, mine, yours, fee- 
are subjects, and objects without any variation in form — 
hence they have nothing at all, which can be called case! 
Why, then, the question recurs, have we imported this term, 
case, this useless, this worse than useless commodity, from 
Rome to America ? We have as much use for it as a man 
without a horse, would have for a saddle ! Why should a 
a country that has no grain to grind, erect mills to make 
flour S Why should the enlightened people of America at- 
tach a fanciful property to their language? Why, merely 
for the sake of using a Roman instrument in handling this 
property ! ! This case concern, in the English language, is 
an artificial hue which hides the native colour from the 
eye of the child. 

Having shown that case in English is nothing but the 
imagination of the old school grammarians, I shall pass on 
to the next branch of this subject, namely, the three cases 
which these scholars have contrived to form from no case ! 
In the Appeal, I have done this subject better justice than 
I can hope to do it in this work. Still, what is here said, 
may have a salutary effect upon the minds, and practices 
of teachers, as well as learners, in reference to the true 
science of syntax. 

The cases, says Mr. Murray, are three, viz. : 

1. The nominative, 

2. The possessive, and 

3. The objective. 

I shall dispose of the possessive case in a very summary 
way : the termination which is called the possessive case, 
is a mere adjective, or metaclade affix ; and, as such, it 
converts the word to which it is affixed, into an adjective, 
or metaclade ; as, " Jane's book, and her paper." 

The word her, which is a perfect substitute for Jane's, in 
the above case, is called by the old school grammarians, an 
adjective pronoun ; as, he brought Jane's book, and her 
paper. That is, Jane's book, and Jane's paper. 
1 . The nominative case. 
- 2. The objective case. 

These two cases which the old school grammarians found 
upon the relative character of the things signified by the 
nouns, are well delineated in the F, and X cormes of the 
Principiter. The relative character which is made the basis 



ETYMOLOGY. 119 

of these two cases, is the active, the passive, and the 
other relations of the things denoted by the cormes, or 
nouns. The things pointed out by F, and X, have these 
very relations : in these cormes, then, you have an occular 
illustration of these two cases. You find the actor in k, the 
object acted on, inj, and the object of a proximate rela- 
tion in i, j, and k : they are all near each other. In these three 
things, then, you have the relative character on which the 
two cases under consideration, are founded. And, as F 
denotes these very things, F must be a, fair, a perfect illus- 
tration of these two cases. 

1. " The nominative case denotes the agent, or actor" 
F denotes the actor in k. 

2. " The objective case denotes the object acted on, or 
the object of a relation" 

F denotes the object acted on inj / and the object of a 
relation in i, inj, and in k. The table, i, and the bird, j, 
are near one to the other : these, then, are the objects of 
relation. The bird,,/, is shot by the agent, v, under X — 
hence the bird is the object of an action. The man, k, 
shoots the bird, u, denoted by corme X — this man, then, is 
the agent, the actor. I say, therefore, that F is a true epecon 
of the nominative, and of the objective case. 

Having shown you that F is a true picture of these two 
cases, I believe that one glance at the relative character of 
the things under X, will show you that X is also a true pic- 
ture of both these cases. You find the nominative in the 
actor, v, the object of an action in the bird, u, and the 
object of a relation in the contiguous tables, i and u, as 
well as in the other things, all of which bear a near local 
relation to each other. Yet, strange as it may seem, the 
moment this beautiful theory is put into practice, these 
casing principles are made to war upon each other to the 
utter destruction of the two cases built upon them, and to the 
utter confusion of the student who depends upon them ! No 
one would dream from a view of this theory of cases, that 
F, and X differ in case 11 they point out the same relative 
characters ! these cases are built upon relative character ! 
But, but, but what ! Why, when we come to parse, we find 
that F is confined to the nominative ; — -and X to the object- 
ive !! Let us see from actual experiments : 



120 ETYMOLOGY. 

F. H. X. 

1. John shot bird; 

A. F. H. O. Q. X. 

2. therefore bird was shot by John, 

D. F. H. Q. D. X. 

3. Round table stands by square table ; 

F. H. O. X. 

4. because it does stand near to it, 
F. 

"John shot bird." 

Here John denotes the actor, and is in the nominative 
case, (all right.) 

F. X. 

" Therefore bird was shot by John? 
Here, too, John denotes the actor — but, strange to tell, this 
noun is in the objective case ! " The nominative case 
denotes the agent , or actor !! 

F. X. 

" Therefore bird was shot by John." 
Here bird is in the nominative ! 

1. " The nominative case denotes the actor ! 

2. The objective case denotes the object acted on." 

If these definitions are worthy of a place in any system, 
are they not worthy of application ? If these definitions are 
regarded, bird must be put, not into the nominative, but 
into the objective case ; and John, not into the objective, 
but into the nominative case ! 

" The objective case " The nominative case 

denotes the object denotes the agent, or 

of an action ; as, actor ; as, 

A bird was shot by John. 

" The objective case expresses the object of an action, or of 
a relation ; as, this table is by that table. 

Now, it is said that the square table, is the object of a 
relation which it bears to the round table. The relation 
between the two tables is that of locality, place, or that of 
approximation. The round table is certainly placed some- 
what near the square table. And this relation of nearness 
is expressed by the word, by. But does by represent the 
square table as being nearer to the round table than the 
round table is to the square one ? The round table is just 
one quarter of an inch from the square table — and it is dif- 



ETYMOLOGY. 121 

ficult for me to understand in what way the square table can 
be any less distance from the round one ! If you take away 
one quarter of an inch, the round table would come in con- 
tact with the square one. If you take away one quarter of 
an inch, the square table would come in contact with the round 
table. Which table, then, is nearer to the other 1 If the 
nearness of one to the other is a common local attribute, why 
should one be said to be the object of this nearness more 
than the other? If the square table is an object of the local re- 
lation existing between the two tables, why is not the round 
table an object of this local relation 7 The round table is 
by the square table. In the above instance the square table 
is the object of the relation of nearness existing in common 
between the two tables ! In the following, however, the 
round table becomes the object of this relation : 

The square table is by the round table ! 
Again, Johnson is with his brother" 

Which is the nearer ; the brother to Johnson, or Johnson 
to the brother ! 7 As the word, brother, only, is parsed in 
the objective, it is to be presumed that the brother is much 
nearer to Johnson than Johnson is to him ! ! (See the 
Apteal on the objective case.) 

It is said by Mr. Murray, however, that the nominative 
case is the subject of the verb. A subject, says Johnson, 
" is that on which any mental, or material operation is per- 
formed." Hence the surgeon denominates the dead body 
which he dissects, his subject. Let us then say, 

" Smith dissected that body with great skill," 
and we shall see with what adroitness Mr. Murray turns 
the subject into an object, and the operator himself into a 
subject ! " Smith dissected that body" 

Here, says Murray, Smith is the subject, and the dead 
body the object ! Bat is Smith operated upon by the dead 
body 7 Which, then, is the subject ? 

Again, " Johnson, thou hast been punished with just 
severity." 

Here the word, Johnson, is in the nominative case inde- 
pendent of the verb ! How can this word be the subject 
of the verb, and yet be independent of the verb 7 How can 
A be the subject of a King, and yet be independent of that 
King 7 How can A be connected with D, and yet have no 
connection with D 7 Further, Johnson is not only not the 



122 ETYMOLOGY. 

subject (except it is under the true definition of subject, 
which Mr. Murray clearly rejects) but he is, in truth, the 
object acted upon ! The word, thou, is parsed as a pronoun, 
second person, singular number, and in the nominative 
case. But who that can read English can not see that 
" thou" denotes the object of the action, denominated 
punished. Look at the instance again : 

" Johnson, thou hast been punished with just severity." 

Let Mr. Murray attach whatever character he pleases to 
subjects, and objects, it is clear that both Johnson, and thou 
denote the object acted upon. 

Having given the true meaning of the word, subject, it 
may be well enough to give that of the word, object. The 
word, object, says Webster, " means that about which any 
power, or any faculty is employed." 

Now, is there not power, and is there not some faculty 
employed in punishing Johnson ? Is not Johnson, then, an 
object ? But let us hear Dr. Webster further upon an object. 
In his fourth definition he says, 

4. " In Grammar, that which is produced, influenced, 
acted on by something else ; as, 

1. " God created the world" 

2. " Light affects the eye" 

3. " Instruction directs the mind" 

These are Mr. Webster's own examples which he has 
given in illustration of his fourth definition of an object. 
And it will be seen that he has been careful to collocate the 
words in each in such a way as renders the three nouns 
which denote the objects in the objective case. But from 
the arrangement which I shall take the liberty to make of 
the words in his instances of illustration, that distinguished 
grammarian may learn that we may have objects in the 
nominative case as well as in the objective. I shall first 
repeat his instances in the order in which he has given 
them: 

1. " God created the world" 

2. « The light affects the eye" 

3. " Instruction directs the mind" 

1. " The world was created by God !" 

2. " The eye is affected by the light !" 

3. " The mind is directed by instruction ! 

Thus we find Dr. Webster's objects, world, eye, and mind, 



ETYMOLOGY. 123 

all in the nominative case ! Nor is this the only curiosity 
which this new arrangement has produced, for we find his 
actors, God, light, and instruction, all snugly boxed up in 
the objective case! 

In what way do God, light, and instruction, become ob- 
jects ? Will it be replied that they become objects because, 
" some faculty of the mind is employed about them ?" The 
mind which has introduced them into these sentences, must 
have thought of them, otherwise it could not have brought 
them into sentences." Why, then, are they not objects in 
the first set of sentences as well as in the second ? 

1. " God created the world." 

2. " The light affects the eye." 

3. Instruction directs the mind." 

Is not the faculty of thought employed about God, the 
light, and instruction, in the above sentences ? If not, how 
could the mind of Dr. Webster bring them into these sen- 
tences 1 And, if this faculty is employed about them in the 
above instances, why are they not objects in the above as 
much as in the following : 

1. " The world was created by God I" 

2. " The eye is affected by the light /" 

3. " The mind is directed by instruction I 
Now, if these three agents become objects upon the ground 

that some mental faculty is employed about, or upon them, 
in one instance, why not in two, and if in two,why not in 
all ? Unless something plausible can be shown to the con- 
trary, one is bound to concede the point. These three 
agents, then, become objects as much under Dr. Webster's 
arrangement as under mine ; consequently, each is in the 
nominative, and each in the objective case at the same 
time ! God is the performer of the act of creating ; hence 
in the nominative, God is the object about which the faculty 
of thought is employed, both by the author, and the reader 
of the sentence ; hence in the objective. 

There is one more point which I deem it important to 
consider before I dismiss the subject of these two cases : 
that point is the remedy. What is the remedy proposed 
in the English Syntax 1 The English Syntax proposes 
to reject the relative character of things, and the dictionary 
import of words, as having nothing to do with the formation 
of a system of Grammar. The character of the thing is 



124 ETYMOLOGY. 

not infused into its name ! Was it otherwise, the word, 
clergyman, would be clothed with sacerdotal robes ! If the 
character of the thing sprang from the thing into the name 
of the thing, the word, sugar, would have become a sweet 
noun, and the word, vinegar, a sour substantive long ago ! 
If the doctrine of the old system is true, the word, arsenic, 
would have slain more than the sword ! No, no, this word 
is not rats-bane, though it means that virulent poison which 
rats so much dread ! What, am I told that this course is 
ridiculous 1 Ridiculous as you may think it, it is that 
which the old school grammarians have pursued in the 
formation of the present popular system of English Gram- 
mar ! They say that real action, real being, or real suffer- 
ing infuses into words the verb character. The new school 
grammarians say that the verb character is not derived 
from the thing which the word may happen to denote ; the 
verb character is that innate cordictive attribute, that innate 
sentential spirit, which is connate with the word itself. If 
action, being, or suffering is necessary to the giving of the 
verb character, how is it that "resembles" is a verb!? 
Why, too, if action infuses into the word the verb character, 
is not every word which signifies action, a verb ! ? 

The old school grammarians say that quality gives the 
word denoting it, the adjective character. But the new say 
that the innate capacity of the clade to be conjected both to 
the nominative, and to the objective case, gives the adjec- 
tive character. If quality gives the adjective character, 
why do not all nouns which denote qualities turn into ad- 
jectives ! ? Why, too, do not all verbs which denote action, 
turn into adjectives ? Who does not know that every ac- 
tion is a quality ! ? 

The old school grammarians say that the actor gives the 
noun the nominative-case character. (The nominative case 
denotes the actor ; as, He was hit by me !) 

The new school grammarians say that the noun has an 
innate sentence-forming power, a power which the noun has 
in itself: they say that this sentence-forming power is not 
derived — but that it is an attribute which the noun has in- 
dependent of the relative character of the thing signified. 
The old school grammarians say that the nominative case 
is known from the fact that the noun denotes the actor ! 
The new school grammarians say that the nominative case 
is known, not by the thing which the noun signifies, but 



ETYMOLOGY. 125 

from the exertion of an innate sentence -forming power in 
bringing that innate sentential spirit which distinguishes the 
verb, the gnomaclade, and which lies, while untouched by the 
noun, coiled up in the verb, into a full cordiction, a full 
sentence character. This innate sentence -forming power is 
illustrated in the poe springs, the sentence forming springs, 
with which the F corme forms the innate cordictive elements 
which represent the innate sentential elements that character- 
ize the verb, into the five cordictions upon plate c. The 
new school reject the word, nominative, as unmeaning, and 
adopt the word, po-e. And for the same reason, they re- 
ject the word, noun, and employ the word, corme. Poe 
signifies sentence former ; and corme means a foundation 
word. Poecorme signifies that foundation word in the 
frame- work of a sentence, which forms the first principles 
of a sentence character into a full cordiction, a sentence cha- 
racter. The first principles of a sentence character lie in 
the gnomacia.de, and are represented by the gnomodic 
elements which constitute the senteological part of the 
gnojnacl&des, H, and O. 

The old school grammarians say that the object denoted 
by the noun, gives the noun the objective-case character. 
The new school reject the word objective, as irrelevant, 
vague, and perplexing. They also reject the entire doctrine 
of objects, as leading to confusion, and to error. Instead 
of instituting any distinction among nouns, upon the ground 
of their denoting actors, and objects, the new system founds 
the distinction upon the innate sentence forming influence 
which some cormes exert in the production of the sentence 
character, and upon a want, a destitution of this innate 
sentence forming influence in others. Hence cormes are 
divided upon the principle of affirmative, and negative sen- 
teology, into poecormes, and nepoecormes. The affirma- 
tive senteology of cormes is illustrated in the poe springs 
of F, and in the sentence forming action of this corme upon 
the sentential elements of H. The negative senteology of 
cormes, is illustrated in the destitution of the poe springs, 
and in the want of all sentence-forming aid in X. 

The affirmative senteology of clades, is illustrated in the 
innate sentential elements, the first principles of a sentence 
character, which constitute an essential part of H, and O. 
The negative senteology of clades, is illustrated in the innate 

12* 



126 ETYMOLOGY. 

want, in the innate destitution, of these sentential elements 
in all the other clades. 

1. " God created the world. 

2. " The world was created by God" 

Why is God in' the nominative in the first, but objective 
in the second ? Is it because he is the agent ? Surely not, 
for he is the agent in both. The word, God, is a poecorme 
in the first, because this word forms the affirmation principle 
which lies in created, into a sentence. And the word, God, 
is a nepoecorme in the second instance because it exerts no 
sentence-forming influence over the affirmation principle 
which lies in was, and which is brought out by the word, 
world. 

1. God created. 

2. World was. 

These abridgements are both sentences. But neither of 
the following is : 

1. The World. 

2. The by God. 

I have thus attempted to show that even a child can un- 
derstand senteology — in doing it, I have found it conve- 
nient to attempt to show that even an adult must find much 
difficulty in comprehending the old system. Whether I 
have accomplished either, or both objects, is not for me to 
decide. I have put the old system upon its trial ; and that 
very act has put me on mine : it, and J are in the hands 
of our country. 



PROCESS OF PASSIMATION. 127 



Chapter XI. — The Process of Passimation. 

The process of Passimation is a series of classification, 
founded upon the Syntax properties which words possess. 
This series, of course, is more, or less extended, according 
to the number of the Syntax attributes of the particular 
word which happens to be the subject of the classifying 
process. The word, passimation, is formed from passim, 
everywhere, and means the act of referring the word to be 
passimated, everywhere; i. e., to every class in which its 
syntax properties entitle it to a place. 

As passimation is a series of classification, which termi- 
nates only with the exhaustion of the syntax character of a 
word, it becomes important to have a series of technical 
terms, which shall be, not the names of individual words, 
but of entire classes of words. And to form these, I have 
affixed ory to those words which are the names of the general 
syntax properties upon which the classification is founded. 
For instance, to gender, I have affixed tory, which makes 
genitory. " Gender" is the name of a syntax property : 
but genitory is the name, not of a syntax property, but of 
a class of words, which has this property as the basis 
of their classification. 

The first part of this word, genitory, is gen-i, and is 
formed from gender. Gender is the name of a syntax pro- 
perty upon which words are classed, or grouped. And the 
name of this classifying property is applied under a modi- 
fied form, to the class which this property groups, or brings 
together. In other words, the property which classes, gives 
the name to the class which it classes, or groups. Or, the 
class derives its name from the name of the property which 
brings the individuals into the class. 

The suffix, ory, sory, tory, means containing : hence, 
the word, genitory, means a class of words containing, or 
having gender. 

The suffix, ory, sory, tory, also means the "place 
where;" hence the word, genitory, may be considered as 
meaning that place where those words are referred, placed, 
or put, which are classified by their gender. In this sense 
the word is used in relation to the different verbatories in 
the Atlas Syntascope. (See Section II. 



128 



PROCESS OF PASSIMATION. 



I. The technical names for the principal classes of words 
are, 

CORMITORY, AND CLADITORY. 

i. The Cormitory is subdivided as follows, 

1. Poe ? n 

2. Nepoe $ Cormitory. 

ii. The Claditory is subdivided as follow^ 
1. Gnoma 



2. Agnoma ' Claditory. 

II. The technical names for the principal classes founded 
on the syntax properties of words, are, 

Namitory, Proxitory, Exhibitory, Indicatory, Numi- 
tory, Pluratory, Genitory, Prediphemitory, Rela- 

TORY, POSITORY, TlMEATORY, ClINATORY, AND NeCLIN- 
ATORY. 

i. These different classes are subdivided as follows, 

1. Generic ~) -^ 

2. Individual \ Namitory. 



Proxitory. 
Exhibitory. 



1. Exhibitive 

2. Unexhibitive 

1. Poe-ic 

2. Ne-poe-ic 

1. Formative 1 

2. Auditive ^Indicatory 

3. Sinefunctional J 



1. Singular } AT 

2. Plural \ Numitory. 

, es, ves, ies "*J 
n, ee, ic, ice I t 



2 

1 
2. en 



3. im, se, i, a 

4. nepos, sense J 



•Pluratory. 



1. Masculine 

2. Feminine 

3. Ambie 

4. Muo 

1. Edable 

2. Inedable 



i 

^>Genitory. 



Prediphemitory. 



PROCESS OF PASSIMATION. 



129 



1. 

2. 
3. 

4. 
5. 
6. 

7. 



Po-e-corme 

Ne-po-e-corme 

Di-corme 

Mono 

Meta 

Stero 

Clono 



S>Relatory. 



1. Formative 

2. Exformative 

1. Phemic "^ 

2. Presynphemic I 

3. Precftphemic 

4. Presyndiphemic 

5. Pos^phemic 

6. Prepostphemic 

1. Comparable 

2. Numeral % 

1. Comparable 

2. Incomparable 

1. Sub 

2. Super sub 

3. Super 



POSITORY. 



>TlMEATORY. 



Clinatory. 



Ne clinatory, 



- Indicatory. 



I. CORMITORY. 

A cormitory is a class of words, which is composed en- 
tirely of cormes. 

II. Claditory. 

A claditory is a class of words, which is composed en- 
tirely of clades. 

1. A Poe cormitory is a class of words, which is com- 
posed entirely of joo-e-cormes. 

2. A Ne-po-e cormitory is a class of words, which is 
composed entirely of 7?e-/}o-e-cormes. 

3. A Gnoma claditory is a class of words, which is com- 
posed entirely of g-ftojnaclades. 

4. An Ag-no-ma claditory is a class of words, which is 
composed entirely of ag-no~7nadzdes. 



130 PROCESS OF PASSIMATION. 

III. Pluratory. 

A Pluratory is a class of words, which is composed en- 
tirely of such cormes, and clades as may have the plural 
numeration. [Number.) 

The s pluratory is a class of words, which is composed 
exclusively of those words which form their plural with the 
affix, s ; as, book, books. 

The e pluratory is a class composed entirely of those 
words which form their plural with e; as, man, men. 

IV. Prediphemitory. 

A Prediphemitory is a class constituted of all those 
gnomaclades which are distinguished by their prediphemic 
timedex. (English Syntascope, page 174.) 

It is the province of philosophy, and science to distribute 
things into classes. Philosophers have divided all the ob- 
jects of thought into genera. "Aristotle made ten cate- 
gories, viz., substance, quantity, quality, relation, action, 
passion, time, place, situation, and habit" 

Things, however, are now considered in classes, under 
the following names, Class, Order, Genus, Species, and 
Variety. 

T have not room for fixed definitions of these technical 
family names, as used in works of science. I must content 
myself by observing that they are the classifying names of 
the various families of things, and beings which are the sub- 
ject of human contemplation. This method of disposing 
of the objects which surround us, is the work of division, 
and subdivision. The entire family, or race is first divided 
into classes ; each class is subdivided into orders ; each 
order is subdivided into genuses ; each genus is subdi- 
vided into species ; and, if the classifying properties are not 
exhausted in the species, each species is subdivided into va- 
rieties. I will give you a specimen of this scientific ana- 
lysis in the following classifications of the letter, O. 

O, a letter of the Orbic Class, Perfect Order, Branch- 
less Genus. 

Here the Genus can not be subdivided into species, for 
the classifying properties on which this series of classifica- 
tion is instituted, are exhausted in the genus. 



PROCESS OF PASSIMATION. 131 

These terms which are arbitrary in their application, 
may be better understood from the following, 

ALPHABETIC CLASSISCOPE. 

The whole race. 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. 

Orbic Class. BCDGJOPQRSU. 

Perfect I £OQ. 

Imperfect 3 uraer ^BCDGJPRSU. 

Branch \ TQ. 

Branchless 3 p JO. 

Stem I brenus ^ BDJPR. 

Stemless 3 l^CGSU. 

Monopart 1 f J. 

Duopart I Species < DP. 
Tripart J ^BR. 

D Branch } T7 . . CB. 
Q Branch $ Vanet >iR. 

Inorbic Class. AEFHIKLMNTVWXYZ. 

Rightangle7 0d < EFHLT 
Acuteangle 5 Uraer I AKMN^V 

Monostem } 
Duostem 3 p 
Monostem ? 



Duostem 



AKMNVWXYZ. 

EFLT. 
H. 

AKNVXYZ, 
IJVVM. 



Unibranch 1 
Duobranch y 
Tribranch J 
Unibranch \ Species< 
Bibranch 3 
Double A 
Double V 



L. 

FT. 

E. 

XYV. 

AKN. 

M. 

W. 



Let us now give the analysis of Q, by the above scheme. 
Q, a letter of the Orbic Class, Perfect Order, Branch 
Genus. (No Species.) 



132 PROCESS OF PASSIMATION. 

R, a letter of the Orhic Class, Imperfect Order, Stem 
Genus, Tripart Species, and Q Branch Variety, 

Examine this subject through the medium of the clas- 
sicope : the process will render your mind stronger, and 
more acute ; besides, it will give you a knowledge of the 
manner in which these words are employed in works of 
science. Now, let me remark that where there is not a 
throwing of things into classes, there is little science : it is 
the province of science to classify things upon the basis of 
their analogies. Things, however, can not be considered 
in classes without appropriate class names. And where 
the terms which are used in analyzing, are the names of 
the things as individuals, there is a great want of scientific 
method, and of scientific truth. For instance, the word, bee, 
is not the name of a class of letters, but of an individual 
letter. The word, O, is not the name of a class of alpha- 
betical characters, but the name of an individual character. 
This may be seen from the following attempt at a definition 
of the word bee : 

1. The word, bee, is the name of a class of letters in the 
English alphabet ! 

2. B is a class of letters in the English alphabet ! 

3. B is a letter in the English alphabet. 
The word, O, then, is not a class name. 

The phrase, Orbic Class, is a class name. This name, 
not only includes O, but every other letter which has any 
orbic quality ; as, B, C, D, G, J, O, P, Q, R, S, U. 

1. Individual:!?^ ; 

B. 

2. Class : Orbic Class : 

B. 

3. Class : Imperfect Order : 

If I have made you understand the principle on which 
science proceeds in analyzing, you will see a great want of 
science in the method of analyzing words by the old system 
of grammar. The technical terms which the old school 
grammarians apply to the words which they parse, are 
not class, but individual names ! The word, noun, is the 
name of an individual. This may be seen from the fol- 
lowing : 

1. A noun is a class of words, which is the name of any 
thing of which we can have a notion ! ! 



PROCESS OF PASSIMATION. 133 

2. A noun is the name of any thing of which we can 
have a notion. 

The word, noun, then, takes words as individuals; 
whereas, the technology which I propose takes words in 
classes. 

I. CORMITORY. 

A Cormitory is a class of words, composed entirely 
of cormes ; as, man is mortal. 

1. CORME. 

A corme is a foundation word in the frame- work of a 
sentence ; as, Moses smote the rock. 

II. CLADITORY. 

A claditory is a class of words, composed entirely of 
clades, words which bear a branch relation to the cormes 
in a sentence ; as, man is mortal, " Moses smote the rock." 

2. CLADE. 

A clade is a word which bears a branch, or dependent 
frame-work relation to a corme; as, Man is Mortal 
man. 

When the pupil takes up a word for the purpose of 
parsing it, he necessarily mentions the word as its individual 
name. Having mentioned the word, the next step should 
be to class it. But it may be said that when a pupil applies 
the word, noun, to the word, man, he classes it. " Man is a 
noun. 

Well, this is the very thing of which 1 complain ! the 
word is classed by using, not a class name, but by using 
an individual one ! A noun is a class of words, is not 
sense — how then, is it science ? I complain, not because 
words as parsed by the old system, are not classed, but 
because the attempt is made by that system, to class them 
by unscientific means ! 

Upon the following page 1 have given a specimen of 
parsing according to the new system. In this specimen 
there may be some things which are not explained in this 
little work ; such may be found in the English Syntascope. 
For instance, " a cormified mono" may be found under page 
213. This kind of mono, however, cannot be well under- 
stood without a knowledge of a cormified semi-mono which 

13 



134 PROCESS OF PASSIMATION. 

may be found under page 203. Nor can either the cor mi- 
fled semi-mono, or the cormified mono be well apprehended 
without a correct idea of what is denominated cormificaiion 
which is illustrated in the English Syntax, page 161. 

I. SPECIMEN OF ANALYZING BY SCIENTIFIC NAMES. 

["His disciples said Wlw-then-can-be-saved ?"] 
His, a word of the agnoma claditory, meta relatory, metafied 
by is, numeral clinatory, sin-e indicatory, singular 
numitory, nepos pluratory, and masculine genitory, 
belonging to disciples. 

disciples, a word of the poe cormitory, cormified by its nature, 
generic namitory, sin-e indicatory, s pluratory, and 
masculine genitory. 

said, a word of the gnoma claditory, gnomqfied by its nature, 
inedable prediphemitory, dicormic relatory, formative 
pository, and prediphemic timeatory, belonging to 
disciples, and to the cormified mono, " who,-then,-ca?i- 
be-saved." 

who-then-can-be-saved, a cormified mono of the poe cormitory, 
cormified by its application, individual namitory, sin-e 
indicatory, and singular numitory. 

F A H M O 

[Who, then, can be saved?] 
Who, a word of the poe cormitory, cormified by its nature, ex- 
hibitive proxitory, representing what persons, poeic 
exhibitory, sin-e indicatory, plural numitory, sense 
pluratory, and ambi genitory. 

then, a word (used in the sense of therefore) of the agnoma 
claditory, mono relatory, monofied by its application, 
incomparable neclinatory, belonging to its own mono. 
therefore who can be saved ? 

can, a word of the gnoma claditory, gnomafied by its nature, 
inedable prediphemitory, poecorme relatory, formative 
pository, and phemic timeatory, belonging to who* 



PROCESS OF PASS 131 ATI ON. 135 

be, a word of the gnoma claditory, gnomafied by its nature, 
inedable prediphemitory, poecorme relatory, and ex- 
formative pository, belonging to ivho. 

saved, a word of the gnoma claditory, gnomafied by its nature, 
edable prediphemitory, poecorme relatory, and ex- 
formative pository, belonging to who. 

II. SPECIMEN OF ANALYZING BY UNSCIENTIFIC NAMES. 

[John went] ; (but he did not remain.) 
[John went] 
John, an individual poecorme, sinefunctional indication, singu- 
lar numeration, and masculine gender. 
went, an inedable (because it can not form its prediphemic 
timedex with ed) poecorme gnomaclade, formative 
position, prediphemic timedex, belonging to John, 
(but he did not remain), 
but, a monoclade, belonging to its own mono which it subjoins 
to its superior mono : {John went.) 

he, an exhibitive proxy corme, representing John, sinefunction- 
al indication, singular numeration, and masculine 
gender. 

did, an inedable poecorme gnomaclade, formative position, pre- 
diphemic timedex, belonging to he. 

not, a clonaclade, belonging to did. 

remain, an edable poecorme gnomaclade, exformative position, 
belonging to he. 



( 1 ) 



A VERBATORY.* 



A. 



AGNOMACLADE 

Is compounded of the Greek elements, a, not, gnome, a 
sentence, or gnomod, atos, having the capacity to be 
formed, and klados, a branch. The word, agnomaclade, 
then, means a branch word which has not the capacity to 
be formed into a gnomod, or sentence ; as the, of, a, &c. 
(See Syntax, page 42, and 43.) 

Note. — It may be well to observe that atos is a Greek suffix, and is 
synonymous with the common English affix, able in moveable, change, 
able, sentenceable, gnomeable. 

AGNOMECLAD 

Is composed of the Greek elements a, not, gnome, a sen- 
tence, or gnomod, and klados, a branch, and means a 
branch mono which is not a gnomod, or sentence in itself; 
as, He went to Boston. (See Gnomeclad.) 

AGNOMETORY 

Is formed from gnometory, and the negative prefix a, and 
means that portion of the assemblage of parts or words, 
within which no part of the true gnomod lies ; as, It is 
nine. (Nine.) (Syntax, p. 15.) 

ALPHAOLOGY 

Is made from the Greek alpha, a letter, and logos, a 
word, doctrine, science, principle, and means the princi- 
ples of forming words from letters.* 

ALPHOD 

Is derived from the Greek alpha, a letter, and odos, a 
medium, a means, or a way, and means that medium of 

* The words in the Verbatory are not to be memorized. 



y 



A VERBATORY. 



communicating thoughts, which is composed of letters. 
(See phrenod, and phonod.) 



AMBI, 

Both. Pronounced am-be. 



c. 



CLAD 

Is derived from the Greek klados, a branch, a dependent 
part, and means a mono which bears a branch relation to 
another mono ; as, [He went] (to Boston) {where he re- 
mained.) 

CLADE 

Is constructed from Mados, a branch, a dependent part, 
and means a word which bears a branch relation to ano- 
ther word ; as to Boston. 

" To Boston" is called a clad ; but to is called a clade. 
(Pronounced, cladd and clade*) 

CLONOCLADE 

Is constructed from Jclonos, a branch, a clade, and clade, 
and means a clade which belongs, not to a cor me, but to 
another clade ; as, 'Remarkably cold nights. 

CONJECTIVE, 

Alluding to the act of putting words, and monos to- 
gether. 

CONJECTIVE READING, 

A process by which an inferior word, or mono is affixed 
to its own superior word, or mono, by uttering these two 
only ; as, I saw John on last Sabbath at church. 

Connective reading of " at church /" I saw John at 
church, 

CONJECTION, 

That local connection which is produced by conjective 
reading. 

TO CONJECT 

Is to put the inferior mono, or the inferior word to its 



A VERBATORY. 3 

own superior mono, or word, without any regard to any 
other monos, or words ; as, " the fire is quite hot." 
Conjected : Fire is, Quite hot, Hot fire, The fire. 

CONJECTIVE LETTERS, 

Those letters which are used in some of the prepared 
Exercises of this work, to show what two monos should 
be conjected ; as, I saw him a on last Sabbath a at church. 

CORDICTION 

Is the Latin, cor, the heart, and dico, to say, and means 
that attribute of an assemblage of words, which renders it 
a gnomod, or sentence. 

Note. — There are five cordictions : affirmation, interrogation, com- 
mand, petition, and subfirmation. (Subjirmation is a substitute for 
nutation, as found in the Syntax.) 

CORME 

Is from the Greek, kormos, the trunk, the foundation 
part" in the frame-work of a tree ; hence in this work corme 
is applied to those words which are the foundation in the 
frame- work of a mono ; as, Moses smote the rock. [See 
Glade.] 



E. 



ELLIPSIS 

Is an omission of one, or more words in a mono, or of 
one, or more monos in a sentence ; as, he went ( , 
yesterday,) " By grace are ye saved ( , , ) through 
faith." 

Note. — On is understood before yesterday ; and which cometh, after 
saved. 

EPOAGE 

Is made from epos, a word, and age, rank, and means 
the frame- work rank of individual words. (See Syntax, 
page 32.) 

EX, 

Out of some place, birth, -or office. 

THE EXFORMATIVE POSITION 

Is that place on the paper in reference to the poecorme, 



4 A VERBATORY. 

which is not favorable to the exercise of sentence-forming 
power, and which is occupied by that gnomaclade, or by 
those gnomaclades which do not help form the sentence 
character ; as, he shall have been punished. 

F. 

THE FORMATIVE POSITION 

Of a gnomaclade, is the first place in relation to the poe- 
corme ; it is denominated the formative position, first, be- 
cause it is in this place that the cordiction is formed; and, 
secondly, because no gnomaclade in the mono can aid in 
forming a sentence character unless it occupies this posi- 
tion. In the following instance it is can which furnishes 
the elements out of which the poecorme forms the affirm- 
ative cordiction. They can write. 

Write lies beyond the reach of the poecorme they ; they can not 
reach the cordictive principle which lies in write — write is in the ex- 
formative position. And to place icrite within the reach of the poe- 
corme, it must occupy the formative position : They write. 



GNOMACLADE 

Is constructed from the Greek gnome, a sentence, from 
atos, a Greek affix, meaning capable of being formed, and 
from klados, a branch, and means a word which is capable 
of being formed into a sentence, or gnomod, and which 
bears a branch, or dados relation to another word ; as, 
I am. 

Am is a gno-ma-clade. 

Gnome shows into what am may be formed; atos, con. 
tracted to a, indicates the capability of am to be formed 
into ; and clade indicates that am bears a branch relation 
to /. (Syntax, p. 41.) 

1 . Into what am may be formed : Gnom 

2. Capable of being formed, or made into : a 

3. Branch relation of am : * clade. 
(Syntax, page 42, and 43.) 

Note. — Atos is a Greek affix, and is synonymous with the common 



A VERBATORY. 5 

English suffix, able, as, found in moveable, changeable, sentenceable, 
gnomeable. That which is capable of being moved, of being changed, 
of being formed into a sentence, of being made into a gnomod. 

GNOMECLAD 

Is made from the Greek, gnome, a sentence, or gnomod, 
and from klados, a branch, and means a gnomodic, or 
sentensic mono which holds a branch or dados relation to 
some other nouns in the same period : as, [He went] (to 
Boston ;) (but he did not remain there.) Gnomeclad : 
(but he did not remain there.) See agnomeclad. 

GNOMECORME 

Is constructed from the Greek, gnome, a sentence, or 
gnomod, and from kormos, the foundation, the basis, the 
trunk, and means that gnomodic, or sentensic mono which 
is the foundation, the trunk of the entire period ; as, [He 
went] (to Boston ;) (but he did not remain there.) Gnome- 
corme : [He went.] Syntax, p. 21. 

GNOMEOLOGY 

Is made from the Greek, gnome, a gnomod, or sentence, 
and logos, principle, doctrine, and means the doctrine of a 
gnomod. 

GNOMETORY 

Is made from gnome, a gnomod, or sentence, and ory, 
the place where, and means the place, or portion within 
which the true gnomod lies ; as, It is mine. (It is.) (Syn- 
tax, page 15.) 

GNOMOD 

Is formed from the Greek elements, gnome, a cordictive, 
a sentensic thought, and from odos, a medium, a way, and 
means the means, the medium through which we express 
a cordictive thought. (See cordiction, and sentensic.) 



M. 



METACLADE 

Is from the Greek, meia, from one to another, and clade, 
a branch word, and means a clade which can be moved 

21 



6 A VERBATORY. 

from the poecorme to the nepoecorme ; as, The boy read 
the book. 

Metaclade may be considered a contraction of meta- 
cormeclade, and means a clade which, in its frame-work 
relation, alternates from the poecorme to the nepoecorme ; 
as, Good men do good deeds. 

(See Steroclade.) 

METACORMECLADE 

Is compounded from the Greek, meta, from one to ano- 
ther, from corme, basis, and from clade, a branch part, and 
means a clade which is not confined in its frame- work re- 
lation to either the poecorme, or to the nepoecorme, but 
which alternates from one to the other as occasion requires ; 
as, Good, men do good deeds. 

(See Stcronepoecormeclade.) 

MONO 

Is made from the Greek, monos, alone, and means that 
word, or that number of words 3 which can be analyzed 
alone. (See Syntax, page 19.) 

MONOCLADE 

Is constructed from mono, and clade, and means a clade 
which is conjected, or applied to a mono ; as, [He did not 
like the place ;] (hence he returned.) 

Note. — 'He returned* is a mono: and the word, hence, is conjected to this 
mono. Hence this clade is a monoclade. 

MONOLOGY 

Is made from the Greek monos, alone, and logos, a word, 
and means the doctrine of monos. 
(Syntax, page 19.) 

to monoize 
Is simply to divide a sentence into monos. 
(See specimen in the Syntax, page 19.) 

TO MONOLOGIZE 

Is to give more, or less of the monological character ol 
a mono. 

(See specimen in the Syntax, page 30.) 

Note. The process of monoizing, except where one word constitutes a 
whole mono, consists of collating those words which have an individual 
frame-work connection. 



A VERBATORY. 7 

Monoization lays a sentence off into different monological assemblages 
by drawing a line between every two assemblages; as, (In the begin- 
ning) (was Ike word ;) (and the word was) (with God ;) (and the word was God.) 

And monol-o-gi-za-tion gives the monological character of those monologi- 
cal assemblages. The monological character is told in these words : gnome- 
corme, clad ; gnomeclad, agnomeclad ; plenary, implenary ; broken, unbroken ; 
timedex ; course ; relation, fyc. 



N. 



NEPOECOR3IE 

Is constructed from the Greek negative, ne, poietes, a 
former, a maker, and from corme, and means that corme 
which does not form,' or make the gnomaclade, or verb into 
the sentence ; as, I am John. 

(See poecorme.) (See Syntax, page 42.) 



PHONOD 

Is constructed from pho-ne, a voice, and odos, a medium, 
and means the vocal phrenod, or the vocal medium of 
communicating ideas. (See alphod.) (See Syntax, page 
13.) 

PHRENOD 

Is constructed from the Greek, phren, the mind, and 
odos, a medium, a passage, a means, and signifies the great 
highway over which mind travels to mind ; the great me- 
dium through which mind is communicated to mind. 

Remarks. 

The introduction of the word, phren-od, is not intended 
to displace its senior, language. The object in the forma- 
tion of phren-od, is to furnish a name that is more signifi- 
cant of the connection which the great mental instrument 
has with the mind, and which is more expressive of the na- 
ture of its province in the communication of ideas, than is 
the old word which is derived from lingua, the tongue. 

Phrenod is constructed from the Greek, phren, the mind, 
and odos, a way, a passage, a medium, a means, and sig- 
nifies the great highway over which mind travels to mind ; 
the great medium through which mind is communicated 



8 A VERBATORY. 

to mind — the diversified means by which ideas are trans- 
mitted by mind to mind. 

There is a great variety of phrenods — two, however, 
are all which need be mentioned in this work. They are 
phonod, and alphod. (Phone, a voice, a sound, and alpha, 
a letter.) 

From the materials of which language is constructed, 
it is naturally divided into two kinds ; namely, vocal lan- 
guage, and letter language. Whether these two instru- 
ments for the communication of thought, are sufficiently 
distinct to entitle each to a distinct name, is not a point 
which the author intends to discuss in this work. Expe- 
rience has abundantly shown that it becomes important to 
make a marked distinction between them in teaching, and 
in speaking. And it is somewhat singular that all who 
have aided in forming, and improving the English phrenod, 
have left us to make this distinction by the use of phrases 
— such as vocal language, verbal language, the language 
of sounds, spoken language, printed speech, letter language, 
&c. That this important distinction may no longer depend 
upon phrases, the author of this work has constructed the 
following words which, he trusts, convenience alone will 
induce his country to adopt : 

Pho'-nod, and Al-phod. 

1. Pho-nod is constructed from phone, a voice, and 
odos, a medium, and means the vocal phrenod — or vocal 
medium of communicating ideas. 

2. Alphod is constructed from alpha, a letter, and from 
odos, a medium, and means the letter phrenod — or the 
mental communicative medium which is composed of let- 
ters. The three words, then, are : 

1. Phren-od, 2. Pho-nod, and 3. Al-phod. 

There are three other words which spring from these, 
that are employed to denote the respective sciences of these 
phrenods. Phren-o-dy, Pho-no-dy, and Al-pho-dy. 

1. English phrenody is the art of ju sing the English 
phrenod with propriety. 

2. English phonody is the art of speaking the English 
phonod with propriety. 

3. English alphody is the art of writing the English 
alphod with propriety. 



A VERBATORY. 9 

It is to be hoped that the time will come when the En- 
glish alphod will be constructed more in conformity with 
the English phonod. 

A phonod is natural — an alphod is artificial. A phonod 
is evanescent — an alphod is durable. A phonod is a me- 
dium through which we hear ideas — an alphod is a me- 
dium through which we see them. The phonod extends 
no farther than the instruments employed in its formation, 
can shake the dense air. But the alphod is the great his- 
torscope* through which a present generation may view 
all the past. 

4. Pho-ne-pos is constructed from phone, a voice, and 
epos, a word, and means a word constructed from voice or 
sound. 

5. Al-phe-pos is constructed from alpha, a letter, and 
epos, a word, and means a word constructed from letters ; 
as, iji-com~pre-hen-si-bil-i-ty. PI. pho-ne-poi, al-phe~poi. 

POECOR3IE 

Is constructed from the Greek, poiet es, a former, a maker, 
and corme, and means that corme which forms the gnoma- 
clade, or verb into the sentence; as /am John. 

POEOLOGY v 

Is from the Greek, poieo, to make, form, or create, and 
logos, a word, and means the proper formation of words 
from sounds, and letters. Pronounced, po-e-ol-o-gy. 



s. 



SEMENOLOGY 

Is constructed from the Greek, semcenos, to designate, to 
distinguish, and logos, principle, doctrine, and means the 
principles on which words designate those ideas to which 
the mere dictionary import conveys no allusion, as time, 
number, gender, &c. 

(Syntax, page 55.) 

SENTENCE 

Is formed from the Latin, sententia, to think, and means 

* Historia, history, and skopeo, to view. 
"21 * 



10 A VERBATORY. 

the means, the instrument by which a cordiction is ex- 
pressed. \ 

Note. To think is to form cordictive propositions in the mind ; and, as 
sententia is the name of this cordictive act, or process, the word, sentence, 
has come to be the name of the means, or medium through which the cor- 
dictive thoughts are expressed. (See cordiction.) 

SENTEOLOGY 

Is compounded of sentence, contracted to sen-te, and 
logos, doctrine, principle, and means the sentential, and the 
want of the sentential power, agency, or principle in the 
words of a sentence, or mono. 

(Syntax, page 42.) 

STE-RO-NE-PO-E-CORME-CLADE 

Is compounded of the Greek, steros, fixed firmly, con- 
fined to, nepoecorme, and clade, and means a clados word 
which in its frame-work dependence, is confined to the 
nepoecorme ; as, I went from him to them. (See meta- 
corme-clade.) 

STEROCLADE 

Is contracted from ste-ro-(ne-po-e-corme)-clade, and 
means a clade which in its clados relation is confined to 
the nepoecorme ; as, He went to Boston. (See steronepoe- 
cormeclade.) (Syntax, page 45.) 

SUBFIRMATION 

Is made from the Latin, sub, inferior, and frmo, to make 
firm, and means that degree of verbal assurance, which is 
less than that given by affirmation. 

Note. The general rule for compounding sub with other words, would 
require a substitution of/ for h : suffirmation. But subfirmation is better 
than suffirmation. 

SYNCLADEOLOGY 

Is compounded of the Greek, sun, with, or together, 
klados, a branch part, and logos, doctrine, or principle, 
and means the principles of that classification of clades, 
which is founded upon their frame-work connection with 
other words. (See Syntax, page 44.) 

SYNCRATOLOGY, 

From the Greek, sun, together, or with, kratos, power, 
and logos, a word, the conjunctive powers, and characters 
of words. The idea of together, or conjunctive is from sun ; 



A VERBATORY. 11 

that of power, and character, from kratos ; and that of 
word, from logos. 

SYNTASCOPE, 

From Syntax, the constructive principles of a language, 
and scopeo, to view ; a large map, giving a symbolic view 
of the syntax of the English language. 

SYNTAX, 

From the Greek sun, with, or together, and tasso, to 
put properly, the putting of things together in a proper 
manner. 

TO SYNTAX, 

To put sounds or letters into words, words into monos, 
and monos into sentences in a proper manner. 

SYNTAXED, 

Properly put together. 

SYNTITHOLCGY, 

From the Greek, sun, together, or with, tithemi, to put, 
and logos, a word, and means the putting of words together. 
(Pronounced Syn-te-thol-o-gy.) 

This word is offered as a substitute for the word Syntax, 
as applied by the British grammarians. 

Note. Syntax is too general in its import to be restricted to the putting 
of words together. The letters of a word are put together; as, Grammar. 
Hence there is as much syntax in Orthography, as in any other part of 
Grammar. Indeed, there is no process in forming sentences, in which there 
is not a putting of parts together; hence the entire science is of a Syntacti- 
cal, or conjunctive nature ; therefore it should be denominated Syntax. 

Syntithology is divided into two parts which may be found in the Syn- 
tax, page 177. 



v. 



VERBATORY 

Is made from verba, words, and ory, the place where, 
and means the place where words are defined. 



12 A VERBATORY. 



THE OLD TERMS. 



A. 

Adjective, something added to that which was before. This 
word is not properly used by the British grammarians as a techni- 
cal term. (See Appeal, page 20.) 

Article, (from articulus, a joint) a joint. This word in the 
old grammars is applied to a, an, and the, but with what propriety, 
or to what advantage it is difficult to see. 

Adverb, (from ad and verb,) an added word, for verb means 
word ! Hence any word which is added to another is an adverb. 
As a technical term adverb is useless, for it has no discriminative 
power. 

C. 

Conjunction, (from con, and jungo,) a connection, not a con- 
nector. 

N. 
Noun, (from nomen, a name,) this word means a sign of an 
idea, and is as broad in its application as the word word itself, for 
all words are the signs of ideas. (See Appeal.) 

I. 
Interjection, an unmeaning combination of sounds, employed 
in the old grammars as the class name of a few words which the 
British grammarians tell us come between other words, but which 
indeed generally come before them ; as, " Ah, me, miserable," — 
What, who comes there 1 — " Heavens, is it you V 9 

P. 

Participle, as used in the old Grammar, is an unmeaning 
combination of sounds. 

Preposition, from pre, before, and pono, to place. This word 
means placed before, and is not calculated to express the charac- 
ter of any class of words, which derives its character from being 
placed before, or behind any other word. 

V. 

Verb, from the Latin word, Verbum, a word. The word, verb, 
is synonymous with word ; and of course, is no more applicable 
to any one class of words than the word, word itself. 



BROWN'S 

ENGLISH SYNTAX INSTITUTION, 

No. 90, South Eighth St. 

IN WHICH 

THE CONSTRUCTIVE PRINCIPLES 

OF THE 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE 

ARE SO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED 

BY 

THE SYNTASCOPE, 

AND SO CLEARLY EXPRESSED 

BY 

A NEW NOMENCLATURE, 

THAT THE PUPIL IN IT 

Can acquire a better knowledge of the Syntax 
of the English Phrenod 

IN A FEW DAYS 

Than he can ever acquire by the old British System 

OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 



The speed, and perfection with which any operation is performed, depend 
much upon the means employed. 



DESIGNED, 



First, To qualify those who wish to lecture upon the American System of English 
Syntax, to do so with credit to themselves, and with advantage to the public ; 

Secondly, To render that aid to those teachers who wish to use this system in their 
schools, which will enable them to do justice to their pupils ; and 

Thirdly, To teach adults, and children of both sexes, who desire to acquire a tho- 
rough knowledge of the Syntax of the English Language in a few days, with- 
out the slavish process of memorizing opponent definitions, absurd rules, 
and irrelevant notes in unmeaning technicality. 



PHILADELPHIA. 

1839. 



BROWN'S 

ENGLISH SYNTAX INSTITUTION, 

No. 90, South Eighth Street. 



DESIGNED 

First, To qualify those who wish to lecture upon the American 
System of English Syntax, to do so with credit to them- 
selves, and ivith advantage to the public ; 

Secondly, To render that aid to those teachers who icish to use 

this system in their schools, which ivill enable them to do 

justice to their pupils ; and, 

Thirdly, To teach adults, and children of both sexes, who desire 

to acquire a thorough knowledge of the Syntax of the 

English Language in a few days, without the slavish 

process of memorizing opponent definitions, absurd 

rules, and irrelevant notes in unmeaning 

technicality. 



REMARKS. 

That an institution devoted exclusively to philological 
instruction, may exert a beneficial influence upon our 
country at large, and particularly upon the rising genera- 
tion, will readily be admitted. Nor will any who have 
felt the difficulties which every one must feel in acquiring 
a knowledge of the constructive principles of our vernacu- 
lar tongue by the British system of English Grammar, 
withhold their hearty assent to any plausible measure 
which has, for its object, an exposition of error, and a de- 
velopement of truth in philological doctrine ; the rejection 
of complexity, and the introduction of simplicity in didactic 
method. 

(2) 



The principal of this institution has given undivided at- 
tention for years to the subject of English grammar, and 
English Grammars. He has examined nearly, if not all 
the works which have been published upon the Syntax of 
our language. He has examined these works, not to dis- 
cover truth, but to ascertain whether any of them contain 
it. And, from a conviction that they are all wrong in 
principle, unmeaning in technicality, and complex in 
method, he has attempted an exposition of their unsound- 
ness in doctrine, inadequateness in technical terms, and 
complexity in method. This he has done in a work entitled, 
" An Appeal from the British System of English 
Grammar to Common Sense." This work comprises 
three hundred, and thirty-six duodecimo pages, and may 
be procured at the Institution. 

In another work, the author of the Appeal has attempt- 
ed to form a system in strict conformity to the constructive 
principles of our language. This is styled, 

^ The American System of English Syntax, devel- 
oping the constructive principles of the English Phrenod, 
or Language, and impressing them on the memory by pic- 
torial, and scenical illustration, thus enabling the adult at 
home, and the child at school, to acquire, in a few months, 
a better knowledge of Syntax by the American System 
than they can ever acquire by the British." 

This work comprises two hundred, and sixteen duodeci- 
mo pages, and may be procured at the Institution. 

The English Syntax is new in doctrine, new in techni- 
cality, and new in method. And the author, believing the 
work to be as important to his country as it is novel in the 
annals of science, has deemed it his duty to attempt to 
found an Institution, 

First, To qualify those who wish to become lectmers 
on his system, to do so with credit to themselves, and ad- 
vantage to the public. 

Secondly, To render that aid which those teachers who 
wish to use the system in their schools, may need to ena- 
ble them to do justice to their pupils, — and, 

Thirdly, To teach adults, and children of both sexes, 
the constructive principles of the English Language in a 
few days without the slavish process of memorizing oppo- 
nent definitions, absurd rules, and irrelevant notes. 



All who wish to become teachers of the system, or 
venders of the works, are invited to call on the principal 
of the Institution, No. 70, Chesnut street, where he will be 
happy to do all in his power to enable them to pursue a 
lucrative, and an honorable business. 

Those parents whose children are now attending to 
grammar, are invited to call on the principal of the Insti- 
tution, at any hour which may suit their convenience, who 
pledges himself to demonstrate to them that the old British 
system is inconsistent with itself, and with truth, that it is 
wholly irrelevant to the genius of our language, and directly 
opposed to the intuitive dictates of the human mind. 

In this Institution any adult with a good mind, and 
with the habit of application already formed, may acquire 
a correct knowledge of English Syntax in seven, or eight 
days. This statement may excite some surprise in the 
public mind. But he who has made it is prepared to sus- 
tain it by the most ample demonstration which the most 
skeptical may demand. And it may be said with a scru- 
pulous regard to truth, that a teacher who understands the 
art of teaching by the The American System of English 
Syntax, can impart a better knowledge of the constructive 
principles of the English language in seven days, six hours 
a day, than he can impart by the old British system of 
English Grammar, in an age. 

N. B. All the members of this school are made familiar 
with the old technical names. 



For conditions apply to the principal, at the Institution, 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 



PREFATORY REMARKS. 



About twenty three years since, the author of this work, 
began the investigations which have resulted in the formation 
of " The System of English Syntax." He commenced by 
forming a new nomenclature which, in his opinion, is absolutely 
necessary to a clear developement of the constructive genius 
of our language. In his first work, he made but two parts of 
speech ; namely, Primary, and Secondary. In this, and 
several other later publications, he has substituted corme for 
primary, and clade for secondary. 

The system here presented, is so far from being a departure 
from the principles upon which the author's first attempts were 
made, that it is a very close conformity to them. Of the works 
which the author's inceptive stages of investigation produced, 
many gentlemen spake in quite flattering terms. And, although 
the author does not rest the introduction of his system upon the 
authority of great names ; yet, as philosophers, and moralists, 
theologians, and innovators generally, have resorted to the 
opinions, and concurrent testimony of distinguished individuals 
to obtain a sanction for their doctrines, and systems, he deems 
it proper to present to the public the opinions which eminent 
scholars, and teachers have expressed of his work. 

"Albany, June 24, 1822. 

" I have read with attention a book by Mr. James Brown, on 
the subject of English Grammar. The work evinces acuteness 
of mind, and originality of thought. The defects of the old 
system are clearly and forcibly exposed ; and the one which he 
proposes as a substitute, although not presented as a finished 
work, evinces a long and familiar acquaintance with the sub- 
ject ; and, in practice, is so readily comprehended even by 
young children, that I cannot but consider it well worthy of 
adoption. I have examined children, both singly and in classes, 



2 KECOrriMENDATIONS. 

with no knowledge whatever of any other system, and with but 
a short course in this, whose progress was truly astonishing. 

" The author of this work is a man of great personal modesty, 
and possesses native talent for philological investigation. I hope 
that he may receive the encouragement which his work so 
justly merits, that the efforts of his long application may at 
length be amply rewarded. 

"DE WITT CLINTON." 

''Bellvue Place, August 16, 1836. 

" Having seen Mr. Brown's grammatical diagrams, having at- 
tended an examination of his pupils, having frequently con- 
versed with him on the analogies cf language, and having 
examined his works, I am convinced that his system is by far 
the most intellectual, and at the same time, the best calculated 
to convey to the student's mind a knowledge of the philosophy 
of grammar, of any which has ever attracted my attention. 

" I have paid some attention to Mr. Brown's ' Appeal from the 
British System of English Grammar, to common sense,' and 
cannot help considering it a v/ork of profound reflection. 

" Mr. Brown's system, duly appreciated, and adopted into our 
schools, would soon disenthral the grammar of our language 
from the shackles fastened upon it by the most celebrated gram- 
marians from the earliest period down to the present day. The 
crudities, inconsistencies, and absurdities of the definitions, and 
views of Murray's system, whose empire, for many years has 
been the most extensive, will, upon the perusal of this Appeal, 
appear obvious ; and utterly indefensible. 

" The mind of the pupil, relieved from the benumbing influ- 
ence of such a course as has hitherto prevailed, will advance 
with intelligence, and, consequently, with pleasure, and make 
more headway in three months, by Mr. Brown's plan, than in 
four times that period, by the common method. 

"In attending to the mechanism of the language the pupil is 
insensibly introduced into the most interesting, and useful parts 
of its philology ; and his intellectual powers become gradually 
developed, stimulated, and delighted by the recognition of its 
philosophic principles. In short, Mr. Brown's system forms a 
new epoch in the history of English Syntax as important in our 
language, as the steamboat in our waters. 

" The new nomenclature employed by Mr. Brown, seems to 
be the most formidable objection to the introduction of his sys- 
tem, into our schools. After all, this objection is not so great, 
as at the first sight, it might appear to be. All admit the ad- 
vantage of having the technicals of an art or science removed out 
of the reach of the fluctuations in meaning, to which the words 
in common use, are constantly subject. Besides, Mr. Brown's 
corme, gnomacl&de, raetaclade, monoclade, &c. are just as in- 
telligible to the juvenile pupil, at the age when the English 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 3 

Grammar is put into his hands, as noun, verb, adjective, &c. 
The difficulties of the vocabulary, therefore, are more imaginary 
than real. A very short time will render these terms as fami- 
liar as those, incomparably less appropriate in the common 
Grammars. 

" True, in many cases, innovation, even of the most useful 
kind, has much opposition to expect from long established habits, 
and prejudices. The introduction of the Dutch winnowing fan, 
into a neighbouring island, created, among some of the good 
people much uneasiness, and was decried as leading to Atheism, 
involving a distrust in Divine providence, as if God w T ould no 
longer send the west wind through the threshing floors of their 
barns. Prejudices against this system, equally unfounded, w 7 ill 
soon vanish on its introduction into our schools. 

" Mr. Brown deserves public patronage, as a public benefactor. 
It is sincerely hoped he will receive it. The more his system 
is known, the more it will be appreciated. 

"SAMUEL B. WYLIE, 
" Vice Provost of the University of Pennsylvania" 



" Philadelphia, July 6, 181:5. " 

"The examination which I have been able to give James 
Brown's ' System of English Syntax,' has satisfied me of its 
great superiority in almost, if not in every point of view, to the 
old system ; and that the advantages, resulting from its general 
introduction, would much more than compensate for the tempo- 
rary inconvenience of making the exchange. The system in 
my opinion, should make a successful appeal to every lover of 
philological truth. 

« SAMUEL W. CRAWFORD. 

"Principal of the Aademy connected with the University." 



" Philadelphia, January 1835. 

" Bitter complaints are made by critics and philosopher's in 
Great Britain of the insufficiency of their English Grammars. 
4 They are compilations,' says the Edinburgh Review, 'of silly 
rules, crowding the memory, and debasing the understanding 
of the pupil — a jargon of nickname definitions, the learning of 
which is a mere ad capiandum ceremony, making a parrot of 
the pupil to delight his grandmother, and to give notoriet)^ to 
his schoolmaster and academy.' * * * * 

"Brown is emphatically a grammarian. He has invaded this 
province of philosophy, and made it his ow T n by conquest." 

"JOHN SANDERSON." 



4 RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Extract of a letter from Professor Espy, to a friend. 

Phila., Sep. 13th, 1839. 
" My dear sir, 

"In answer to your question, what do I think of James 
Brown's American System of Grammar, I reply, that I have 
for many years been acquainted with this gentleman's profound 
investigations into the very mysteries of our language ; and I 
am sure he has done more than any other man to lay open the 
absurdities, and inconsistencies of Murray, and his host of fol- 
lowers. But this is not all. — He has built up a beautiful and 
luminous system of his own, founded, as I conceive, on true 
principles, simple in their nature, and coherent in all their 
parts ; and he has thus formed grammar into a science which, 
from the logical connexion of all its parts, teres et rotunda in se 
ipsa, will furnish hereafter to the student one of the finest and 
most healthful exercises of the human mind. To the teacher 
of youth especially, it cannot fail to be a highly interesting and 
valuable work, whether he may choose to adopt it entire into 
his school or not. 

"I have now taught the English grammar for thirty years; 
and I have read all the Grammars of any note on the subject ; 
but I have found none except the American System by James 
Brown, which is not full of absurdities and contradictions. I 
feel a deep interest in the progress of a sound, rational, and 
healthful education ; and if my voice could be heard through 
the whole length and breadth of our land, I would say to all 
teachers, examine the work carefully for yourselves. 

" Yours truly, 
James P. Espy." 

The following is from the Letter of the Rev. Mr. Findlay 
Baltimore. 

" No one can read the criticisms of Mr. Brown without feel- 
ing at once ashamed of his own subjection to authority, and 
gratified with the author's ingenuity, and correctness. Brown 
is a philosopher — he has founded his system of grammar upon 
the basis of the mind ; he has succeeded in redeeming the 
grammar of our language from every thing arbitrary. The 
learner is treated as a thinking being ; instead of, as Lindley 
Murray says, or as the rule says, there will be a fitness in the 
thing itself, which will commend itself to the judgment and 
taste of the learner. The day is at hand when a complete revo- 
lution is to be accomplished, when the bonds of irrational pre- 
judice must be broken off, and the mind of the rising generation, 
in the first stages of scientific attainments, taught to assert its 
native dignity and independence. But what can patience and 
genius do in these unobtrusive walks of science, without the aid 
of the influential in society 1 Let the system have a fair trial 
and investigation ; if found to be the system of truth, why not 
adopt it]" 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 5 

Harrisbui-g, February, 20, 1829. 

" I have been much gratified in the examination of a work, 
entitled ' The American System of English Syntax.' And 
I am well satisfied that it possesses a superiority over the popu- 
lar system, which should entitle it to the first attention of an 
enlightened community. 

" The true philosophy, and the striking simplicity of its 
principles, and the judicious arrangement of all its parts, must 
convince every unprejudiced mind of the ultimate success of 
this system. The American system seems to me to be the only 
Grammar suited to the genius of our language, to the ease of 
the teacher, and to the capacity of youth. 

" This work, I am happy to say, prostrates all the difficulties 
which have hitherto existed in English philology — difficulties 
which have defeated both teacher, and pupil ! In a work, enti- 
tled, c Brown's Appeal from the British Syntax,' &c. the 
public will find those numerous points which have been the 
fruitful cause of the many philological controversies, brought 
into complete accordance with the nature of the language, and 
the common sense of man ! 

" The author of this American production has performed a 
double task : he has demolished the old edifice, and erected a 
new one; and to say the least of his labours, I do consider 
them a gigantic step in the march of intellectual improvement. 

" I sincerely hope they may receive that attention which 
they so justly merit from the American people. 

"A. L, KEAGY." 



"I have examined Mr. Brown's 'American Grammar,' and 
from a thorough conviction of its utility, have introduced it into 
my school." 

" It is unnecessary for me to particularize the merits of this 
work. Several eminent teachers have already, in a brief, yet 
comprehensive manner, anticipated much of what I would say ; 
and their testimony is before the public. 

" To call it the best system of ' English Grammar,' would be 
merely repeating what has been said of almost every new pub- 
lication. All, who give it a fair unprejudiced examination, 
must unite with me in calling it ' the only true system.' It 
contains a triumphant appeal from the memory to the judgment, 
and enables the pupil to acquire, with comparatively little exer- 
tion, a correct grammatical knowledge of the English language. 

" It is hoped that a generous public will not neglect one, who 
has spent upwards of fourteen years in loneliness and toil, that 
we and our posterity might reap the fruits of his valuable 
labours.' 

"JOSEPH M. DUNCAN." 



6 RECOMMENDATIONS. 

In a letter of recommendation given by ten of the Professors 
of Mount St. Mary's Seminary, at Emmittshurg, it is said, — 

" Having perused his work, and heard its author lecture upon 
the subject, we believe ourselves warranted in saying, that he 
has devoted the powers of a strong mind, and much care to an 
investigation of the principles of our language, and that his la- 
bours are calculated to throw great light upon this science. In 
his i Appeal,' he has successfully pointed out the defects of the 
old system — and in his own Grammar, he has divested the sci- 
ence of many useless technicalities, and substituted concise de- 
finitions for the vague descriptions generally given. He has, 
too, in his own System, introduced a plan of initiating youth 
into the constructive principles of the language, which, on ac- 
count of its originality, and the great advantages that must re- 
sult from it, reflects credit upon its inventor. We allude to his 
epoage and monology. It is a plan calculated to give useful 
exercise to the mind, and to prepare it for a thorough investiga- 
tion of our language." 

"Baltimore, December 9, 1827. 

" Having carefully examined the ' American System of Eng- 
lish Syntax,'' adopted it in my school, and had some experience 
in the use of it, I consider this work a most happy, timely, and 
judicious innovation. I say happy, because of the masterly 
manner of its execution, — timely, because there are certain 
pettifoggers in grammar, who, for the honour of science, de- 
serve crushing, — and judicious, because its author has saved 
every item that was worth preserving from the unavoidable 
wreck of our old friend Murray. 

" No English scholar, however learned, will feel himself inde- 
pendent of this book. Grammarians who have been made such, 
by the instructions of Murray, will be amply repaid for resum- 
ing the subject, if they look well into the renovated system 
now presented. They, especially, will find the task both easy 
and delightful ; they will acknowledge the development of su- 
perior light, confess the removal of difficulties, and see innu- 
merable obscurities chased from the science. 

" How much the pupil has accomplished, when he is able to 
dissect a sentence, and transpose its members, every teacher 
knows. Without a great deal of this mechanical practice, a 
grammarian cannot be made ; but for its correct performance, 
no method ever existed so efficient, so true, and so practicable, 
as that which the English Syntax furnishes. Its parsing plan, 
must certainly prove of incalculable utility. 

" In short, its improvements are radical — exposing and aban- 
doning the fundamental errors of the British system. Its defi- 
nitions are correct, lucid, and elegant, challenging the keenest 
criticism, and doing honour to American pretensions. Its ar- 



RECOMMENDATIONS. / 

rangement looks like SCIENCE. The style of the book is the 
style which philosophy loves — truth and simplicity are its striking 
characteristics. And to say the whole in few words, the Ameri- 
can Grammar, by James Brown, seems to possess a complete 
fitness for that only legitimate purpose, and ultimate end of all 
grammar — namely to help us transcribe upon our neighbour's 
mind, a true, and faithful copy of the picture on our own. Suc- 
cess to all similar ' innovations.' 

"J. DYKE, Teacher^ 

" Baltimore, Old Town. 

« Sir, — Since last June, when I first saw something of your 
epoage and monology, I have felt considerable interest in your 
Grammar. This, however, has been much increased from using 
the work in my school. I now freely confess that I consider 
your system, so far as regards the science of grammar, invalu- 
able. It calls the intellect of the scholar into use continually, 
and grounds him in the relation of words with each other. 

" The definitions in your work are clear, and the only correct 
ones which I have ever seen. 

" Your epoage, and monology, have assisted my boys in 
parsing so much, that they have now little difficulty in analyzing 
the language. 

" I rejoice that there is a prospect of doing away the old sys- 
tem of English philology ; a system which requires so much 
time, and study ; a system by which the truth can never be ac- 
quired even by the vast body of notes, and exceptions which 
have been introduced to prop up, and support its defective rules, 
and false principles. The labour of the teacher is now com- 
paratively little ; and the long journey of the pupil very much 
shortened. I see new beauties in the work every day. You 
have my best wishes for the prosperity of your system. 

"RICHARD R. FENNER, Teacher." 

" Washington, I). C. April 3, 1826. 

" I have examined Brown's 4 American System of English 

Syntax,' and think it deserves the attention of every friend to 
the best interests of youth. The author has simplified the art 
by discarding many unnecessary distinctions which serve only 
to perplex the learner ; and in the arrangement of the different 
parts, has admirably adapted his work to the purpose of juve- 
nile instruction. At the commencement of the study, the pupil 
is called to exercise his judgment in making distinctions founded 
in the nature of language ; each preparing his mind for that 
which shall carry him nearer to the attainment of his object. 
From a conviction of the superior merits of his work, I have 
introduced it into my school, and have recommended it to my 
patrons, as decidedly preferable to our present popular system. 

" JOHN OBEAR." 



8 RECOMMENDATIONS. 

"Baltimore, January 8, 1828. 

" From a comparison of the ' English Syntax,' with other 
systems which I have used, its superior excellence has induced 
me to adopt it in preference to am/ other. 

"DAVID C. ROSCO." 

Frederic, February 17, 1827. 

Dear Sir, — Permit me to introduce to your acquaintance and 
friendly attention Mr. James Brown, author of the 'English 
Syntax. From the superior excellence of Mr. B.'s system 
of English philology, I have been induced to introduce it into 
my school. It has, I believe, been introduced into all the prin- 
cipal schools of this place ; and will eventually, in my opinion, 
supersede the use of all other systems. Any assistance you 
can render Mr. Brown, by promoting the object of his visit to 
your town, will be duly acknowledged by, dear sir, your obe- 
dient and humble servant, 

"D.H.BINGHAM. 
"Principal of Fredericktown Military Academy" 

Mr. G. Day, Carlisle, Pa. 

"English Syntax. — I have examined Brown's 'English 
Syntax,' and introduced it into my school. The principles 
upon which it is founded are correct, simple, clear, and impor- 
tant. The epoage, and monology alone, are sufficient to recom- 
mend its introduction into all seminaries of learning. 

"JAMES V. BERRY, 
" Teacher, Glade Academy, Frederic Co. Md." 

Hagerstown January 8, 1827. 

" I think that the British system of English Grammar is too 
defective to enable one to acquire a correct knowledge of the 
grammar of our language ; and as I consider the American 
System abundantly competent for this purpose, I have intro- 
duced it into my school, and hope others will introduce it into 
theirs 

" C. COLEMAN." 

Baltimore, July, 1827. 

"I have attentively perused Mr. James Brown's 'English 
Syntax, and in stating my opinion of it, I must say that it pos-^ 
sesses much merit. Even to the student who has been through 
Murray's system, I consider the 4 English Syntax' an invaluable 
work. I shall put it into the hands of my pupils. 

"J.MORRISON." 

"Boonsborough, January 19, 1827. 

" The ' English Syntax' is a work with which I am much 
pleased, and have already introduced it into my school. 

"JAMES BROWN." 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 9 

Alexandria Boarding School, 2d mo. 22c?, 1&26. 

"It is a fact generally admitted by those who have given 
attention to the subject, that nearly all of the many recent 
publications on English Grammar, have contained very little or 
nothing new. They have consisted merely of different modifi- 
cations of the same definitions, and of the same rules — and they 
have been swelled by the same errors, that are contained in the 
works preceding them. The effect of this upon the public 
mind, has been to make it distrustful of all works on the same 
subject ; hence it is, that a work, even of real merit, must find 
considerable difficulty in commanding sufficient attention to 
make its merits known. Under these circumstances, having 
fully satisfied myself that the system of Grammar, now offered 
by James Brown, is entirely different from those which have 
preceded it — that it is a work of real merit, and the only one, 
so far as I have seen, that contains correct definitions of the 
parts of speech, and exhibits a correct view of the grammar of 
our language, I am induced to solicit those who feel interested 
in the subject, to give this work an examination. One of the 
features in which it is strikingly different from other works on 
this subject is, that it exercises the judgment together with the 
memory of the pupil. 

"BENJAMIN HALLO WELL." 

"Mr. James Brown, — Dear Sir : Your system of grammar 
ought not, in my opinion, to be compared with any thing that 
has been previously published. Its principles are new, and 
highly beautiful and interesting ; they are calculated to display 
the full force of our language, to correct mistakes and misap- 
prehensions, and to settle, with admirable precision, the mean- 
ing of a sentence. I have been gratified and instructed by 
attending to this new Philosophic Grammar; and I most 
heartily wish you may receive that encouragement which you 
so justly deserve. Most cordially yours, 

" D. H. BARNES, 
"Principal of the High School, City of New York" 

" Mr. Brown, — Sir : As I have long felt the radical defects 
of the old system of English Grammar — a system which nothing 
but the prejudice of education can render even tolerable, I am 
prepared to hail the advent of Light and Truth upon this im- 
portant subject with peculiar pleasure. You need not be 
informed that I have examined your system with some degree 
of attention ; and permit me to say, sir, that the examination 
has been attended with no ordinary degree of pleasure ! If igno- 
rance is not preferable to knowledge — falsehood to truth — and 
darkness to light, you will, no doubt, discover, ere long, the 
fruits of your assiduous labours, disclosing themselves in an 
abundant harvest of good to our common country. I remain, &c. 

" SOLYMAN BROWN, 
"Principal of the Classical & Belle s-Lettres Academy, N. F." 



10 RECOMMENDATIONS. 

From Mr. Jones of Baltimore. 

" Having given the ' American System of English Syntax' 
a thorough examination, I am ready to say, that in my opinion, 
it excels the present popular system of English Grammar, as 
far as truth excels error, or simplicity complexity. It does not, 
like the old system, abound in rules and definitions, which, 
when applied, are at war with each other ! The rules and 
definitions given in the 'American System,' are consistent 
with the genius of the language of which it treats. These were 
my impressions from a mere examination of this work — and 
now, having acted under these impressions, introduced it into 
my Academy, and seen the many new beauties which, upon an 
application of its principles, have presented themselves, I most 
heartily hope that it may receive a general and speedy adoption. 

" Will the fact of this system's being an innovation cause it to 
be rejected ? By those who have taken it upon themselves to 
support some favourite author, innovation may be regarded with 
a jealous eye. But what true American will persist in the use 
of a British system of English philology, so little analagous to 
the nature of our vernacular tongue, as is the system by Mr. 
Murray, to the exclusion of the American system, which is 
founded in truth, and sustained by philosophy itself} 

" Some may say that it is difficult to teach by the American 
Grammar. It is not so, however. True, no teacher who is 
ignorant of the science, can teach by this system, for the pupil, 
in this system, has not merely to commit to memory, and prate 
his lessons like a parrot — but he must apply the definitions and 
rules by the aid of his thinking faculties. Hence the pupil 
learns to think, which relieves the teacher, and greatly dimin- 
ishes his labour. I would invite teachers and parents to a can- 
did perusal of the work, called — ' An appeal from the British 
System of English Grammar to Common Sense,' 9 by James 
Brown. 

" This will satisfy all who may read it, even those who have 
learned Murray's Grammar, that they will do well to give close 
attention to the American system, by J. Brown. 

" W. B. JONES, Teacher^ 

The American System of English Syntax. 

" Baltimore, August 6, 1828. 

" When I first obtained this excellent production, I very can- 
didly expressed to its author, my strong partiality for the Gram- 
mar of Mr. Murray. I remarked to Mr. Brown, that the con- 
tinued attempts at improvement upon Mr. Murray's system, 
had, in my opinion, completely failed. 

" The novelty of the ■ English Syntax' soon excited my at- 
tention ; and a perusal has convinced me that it is an important 
acquisition to English philology. In this work, I think that the 
world has obtained the long desired desideratum ; namely, the 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 1 1 

means of harmonizing in every case, the sense of all correct 
writers, with grammatical rules and definitions. 

" As a book for the school student, I think the * English Syn- 
tax' is entitled to the highest commendation. From the com- 
mencement, it is attended with less trouble to the teacher, and 
less difficulty to the pupil, than any former system, while it im- 
parts more useful knowledge of the language than any other 
system of grammar from which I have ever given instruction. 

" I think the arrangement of the work is admirable — -it is 
calculated to interest the learner, and to relieve the teacher. 
The advancement of the pupil is gradual — and from under- 
standing what he undertakes to learn he is encouraged to look 
forward to ultimate success. 

" The design of the writer of these brief remarks, is simply 
to give the result of his own investigation of this book — and he 
thinks that he hazards nothings in saying that a candid exami- 
nation of the work must produce entire and high approbation. 

" With these views, he candidly unites with the many recom- 
mendations of the work, given by more competent judges, in 
wishing to the author complete success. 

" WM. WICKS, Teacher" 

The Rev. Thomas Wheat, of Baltimore, concludes his ob- 
servations upon the works of Mr. Brown, in the following 
manner : — 

" Having long been accustomed to test every position of 
grammatical inquiry by Murray's rules, as an infallible standard, 
I was predisposed to regard as highly presumptuous, any inno- 
vator. I have risen, however, from an examination of the works 
before me, no less mortified at my long subjection to the false- 
hood of arbitrary dogmas, than delighted with the new and 
satisfactory truths advocated by our able author. With the 
aid of this common sense system, I shall hereafter be intelligible 
to my pupils, and not disgust and tire them by attempting to 
justify the application of definitions and rules, the inconsistency 
of which may be made evident even to their feeble powers. 
Finally, whether we consider the genius of our language, the 
narrowness of youthful capacity, the pleasure of the learner, 
the ease of the teacher, or the expense of the parent, the ' Eng- 
lish Syntax' ranks far above all others." 

Mr. Pierpont, of Alexandria, concludes thus :. — 
" A system has been formed, a revolution is taking place, un- 
der which the patience of the teacher will not be exhausted in 
explaining absurd principles, nor youth be disgusted by being 
taught to prate about what they cannot understand. 

" After these remarks, it is almost superfluous to add, that 
the American system will soon be introduced into my school. 

"J. R. PIERPONT." 






- 

■■■■ 












